Military Review

ABC-36 automatic rifle bayonet

60
In the thirties of the last century, Soviet gunsmiths actively worked on the creation of the first domestic self-loading and automatic rifles. The first result of these works, brought to mass production and use in the army, was the Simonov automatic rifle arr. 1936 g. - ABC-36. She managed to become one of the world's first self-loading rifles, put into service, and also remained in stories a real symbol of the appearance of a brand new weapons. Nevertheless, despite all the innovations, this rifle had to keep the bayonet inherent in weapons of previous generations.


In parallel with the creation of new weapons, experts studied the prospects of certain variants of the blades. After a series of studies, military and gunsmiths came to the conclusion that there was no point in the further development of needle bayonets that had been used for the past two centuries. A new weapon should be equipped with a bayonet with a wide blade unilateral sharpening. This version of the blade had a noticeable advantage over the needle design, and could also solve a wider range of tasks in addition to combat. Thus, a completely new bayonet of the original design was developed for ABC-36.

Calculations have shown that a relatively long bayonet with new fasteners is required for a new rifle. In fact, the new bayonet was a cleaver with unusual mounts for mounting under the barrel. The design of the new bayonet was divided into several main nodes that were connected during assembly. In addition, it offered a sheath for carrying a bayonet without installing on the weapon. Shooting was also allowed without installing a bayonet.


Bayonet mounted on ABC-36 rifle. Photo Warstory.ru


The main part of the bayonet for ABC-36 was a straight blade of great length with a symmetrical pointed combat end. Sharpening was carried out only on one side, which allowed performing piercing and cutting strokes. To ensure the required stiffness, the relatively long blade had down-sides on both surfaces, as well as rectangular recesses on the heel. A characteristic feature of the bayonet became oblique valleys, rising to the heel of the blade. On other similar bayonets of the time, the valleys ran parallel to the axis of the blade.

The blade did not have a rigid connection with the handle. Due to the use of the original system of fastenings to the barrel, the handle was made as a separate mobile unit. Thus, the back of the blade had a rectangular shape, and in place of the head of the handle there was a large hook, which was part of the blade. With it, the bayonet was supposed to be mounted on the trunk.

The handle was made in the form of an oblong metal frame box-shaped, on the sides of which there were wooden cheeks. On both sides of the frame there were elongated rear parts, made in the form of two-teeth locks. Like the blade hook, these locks should have been involved in fixing the bayonet in its place. In front of the handle frame there was another hook placed below its upper surface.


General view of the ABC-36 rifle. Photo of Wikimedia Commons


The frame of the handle was set on the blade and could move along it. In a special cavity between the frame and blade, in a slot inside the latter, there was a spring that increased the shear force of the handle. Due to this spring, the bayonet had to be held on the barrel.

Simonov automatic rifle arr. 1936 received relatively simple knots for fastening the bayonet. On the trunk, in front of the box and the gas tube, a special U-shaped bracket was provided, between the lower parts of which there was an axis for fastening the rear part of the bayonet. In addition, on the fly block, under the barrel, there was a ledge-tooth used as an additional attachment.

To install the bayonet on the ABC-36, the spring-loaded knob of the cold weapon had to be moved forward and, thus, opened its front fastening, and also pulled apart the rear hook and lock. Then the rear hook was hooked on the rifle clevis axis, and the front latch had to engage the tooth on the front sight block. After that it was possible to release the handle, as a result of which the bayonet turned out to be fixed on the weapon. In the closed position, the bayonet was located exactly under the barrel. The sharpened part of the blade was only in front of the barrel of the rifle, while under the muzzle brake there was an unfinished heel with characteristic rectangular grooves.


The bayonet and its scabbard. Photo Forum.guns.ru


For carrying the bayonet without mounting, a steel sheath was provided on the rifle, equipped with a pair of leather loops for fastening on the belt. Thus, the bayonet could be removed from the weapon and safely carried on the belt, and also, if necessary, used as a knife or a cleaver, aided by its shape and size.

The total length of the bayonet for ABC-36, including the rear mounts, was 450 mm. The blade had a length of 335 mm and a width of 25 mm. The bayonet with a scabbard weighed about 550 g, which did not have a decisive influence on the total weight of the rifle.

The new bayonet was put into service with the ABC-36 rifle in the 1936 year. Officially, he was referred to as a bayonet-arr. 1936 G. for the Simonov automatic rifle. Production of new weapons - both rifles, and, according to some data, bayonets for them - was deployed in Izhevsk. The first batch of serial rifles with blades were handed over to the troops before the end of 1936.

ABC-36 automatic rifle bayonet
The bayonet handle without wooden elements and springs. The frame moving along the blade is clearly visible. Photo Nakop.ru


The new bayonet in hand-to-hand combat had to perform the same functions as its needle predecessors. It should be used when fencing rifles to defeat the enemy infantry. At the same time, new ways of using the blade were proposed. The form and method of sharpening allowed to use a bayonet as a knife for various needs, primarily household. In addition, with the incomplete use of fasteners, he was thought to have a positive effect on the accuracy and accuracy of shooting.

In the early ABC-36 rifle manuals, it was recommended that, if necessary, use a bayonet as a bipod when firing bursts from a prone position. To do this, it was necessary to install the bayonet in a vertical position, fastening only to the rear lock. The emphasis on the block fly is not used. In this position, the blade could rest on any surface and serve as an improvised one-legged bipod, to a certain extent increasing the accuracy of automatic fire.

Apparently, such use of the bayonet did not justify itself in practice, which is why the new guides to the rifle, already released in the 1937 year, were used to use the bayonet only for their intended purpose. According to some sources, the use of a bayonet as a bipod was not only forbidden with the help of appropriate instructions, but also physically excluded. It is alleged that for this purpose the design of the fixings was changed, however the details of these changes are not disclosed.


ABC-36 rifle and its bayonet. Photo of Wikimedia Commons


The serial production of Simonov automatic rifles started in 1936 and lasted until 1940. During this time, according to different sources, from 35 to 65 thousand rifles were released. The exact number of these weapons, for various reasons, remains unknown. All serial rifles were completed with bayonet knives of a new design, designed specifically for them. Thus, the number of serial bayonets was equal to the number of rifles released.

The ABC-36 rifle, despite a number of notable advantages over other weapons of that time, had a significant number of drawbacks associated with the imperfection of the design. Because of this, its production was difficult and expensive, and the operation in the army was accompanied by constant problems. With the advent of newer models, the Simon rifle was discontinued. The use of this weapon lasted for some time, after which all the remaining rifles went to the reserve depots or were disposed of. The same fate befell the bayonets for this weapon.

The Simonov automatic rifle had some flaws and therefore served only a few years. The bayonet for this weapon, in turn, could be considered a real breakthrough in its field. For the first time in domestic practice a bayonet was developed, originally proposed for use with a new weapon. In addition, of great interest was the original design of mounting a bayonet on a rifle. However, these interesting features of the bayonet could not have any impact on the future fate of ABC-36. This weapon was limitedly used for several years, including at the initial stage of the Great Patriotic War, but then gave way to more advanced models.


On the materials of the sites:
http://bayonet.lv/
http://zemlyanka-bayonets.ru/
http://holodnoe-oruzhie.ru/
http://army.lv/
Author:
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Amurets
    Amurets 1 February 2016 07: 39
    +4
    A series of articles about bayonets is interesting. About melee weapons, detailed descriptions are still not enough, mostly museum identifiers, but I would like such a book by Y. Gurevich "The Mystery of Bulat Pattern" but more capacious. at the orderlies of our division when I served as an urgent.
    1. almost demobil
      almost demobil 1 February 2016 08: 13
      +3
      Quote: Amurets
      A bayonet-knife, similar to that described and shown in the photo, was at the orderlies of our division, when I served an urgent.

      Do not confuse with a bayonet from AK-47 with a ring closer to the blade and 2 horns at the end of the handle?
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 1 February 2016 08: 31
        +2
        Quote: almost demobilized

        Do not confuse with a bayonet from AK-47 with a ring closer to the blade and 2 horns at the end of the handle?

        It is possible! But in the ZRV in 1969-1971 there were no automatic machines. You understand that for such a period you can forget the details. But it looks similar.
      2. Hon
        Hon 1 February 2016 09: 32
        +2
        Quote: almost demobilized
        Do not confuse with a bayonet from AK-47 with a ring closer to the blade and 2 horns at the end of the handle?

        AK-47 is the name from KINA?
        1. Chtononibrator
          Chtononibrator 1 February 2016 12: 34
          0
          This is the name of the documents. Not everything is so simple. Read the articles of Ponomarev in the journal Kalashnikov.
          1. Hon
            Hon 1 February 2016 17: 02
            0
            The assault rifle was adopted in two versions under the designations "7.62mm Kalashnikov AK assault rifle" and "7.62mm Kalashnikov assault rifle with a folding stock AKS"
            GRAU index - 56-A-212
            I found an operating manual on the Internet, it’s only a 1970 edition, and there is also nobody AK-47 in it. I don’t know what they write in the articles, I can also write an article, and write any name there, even a kramultuk 47
            http://eknigi.org/voennaja_istorija/179155-762-mm-avtomat-kalashnikova-ak-rukovo

            dstvo-po-srednemu-remontu.html
            1. gross kaput
              gross kaput 1 February 2016 17: 45
              +2
              Quote: Hon
              The assault rifle was adopted in two versions under the designations "7.62mm Kalashnikov AK assault rifle" and "7.62mm Kalashnikov assault rifle with a folding stock AKS"
              GRAU index - 56-A-212

              well, as if everything is not as simple as you wanted, as the classic said - "There are many things in the world, friend Horatio, that our wise men never dreamed of. ..." smile
              1. Droid
                Droid 2 February 2016 12: 26
                +1
                Everything is fine. This manual is signed in print a few months before being put into service. Upon acceptance by order, the name AK and AKC was established, the numbers 47 were discarded.
                1. gross kaput
                  gross kaput 2 February 2016 13: 23
                  +1
                  So this is a known fact - the question is different -
                  Quote: Hon
                  AK-47 is the name from KINA?

                  So they explained to the person that such a name existed in quite official pieces of paper, and the fact that after adopting the name was reduced here, the fact is absolutely secondary.
            2. 2news
              2news 1 February 2016 18: 14
              -3
              Quote: Hon
              and there’s nobody AK-47 in it either

              There was no AK-47. There was AK, then AKM. AK-74 is often written to indicate specifically to the AK arr. 1947
              By the way, there was no DP-27 either. And RP-46 was.
        2. rinat1962
          rinat1962 1 February 2016 21: 18
          -1
          smart what! and answer such a question, the Kalashnikov assault rifle (any model) - clicked on the place of the carob, pulled the shutter and pulled the trigger — what happens next?
          1. rinat1962
            rinat1962 1 February 2016 21: 33
            -1
            too lazy to track the answers, but any man who served in the SA knows that pulling the trigger in the AK is not realistic under such conditions and he will never confuse the carob store with a waffle for ......
            1. gross kaput
              gross kaput 1 February 2016 22: 16
              +4
              Quote: rinat1962
              any man who served in CA knows

              Unfortunately, this does not concern you only - the trigger is a part of the trigger mechanism that transfers the energy of the mainspring to the firing pin or striker, pull the trigger laughing but it’s such a trifle, the trouble is that it is impossible to pull the shutter off without removing the automatic fuse from the fuse, because the fuse box in the upper position closes the slot for the cocking handle and allows the shutter to be retracted only by an amount that allows checking the presence of a cartridge in the chamber but not enough for cocking and releasing the cartridge. laughing The moral of this fable is clear - they wanted to "knowledge" to lower the other, but they themselves sat in a deep puddle.
            2. Hon
              Hon 2 February 2016 08: 38
              -1
              Quote: rinat1962
              too lazy to track the answers, but any man who served in the SA knows that pulling the trigger in the AK is not realistic under such conditions and he will never confuse the carob store with a waffle for

              only now they don’t pull the trigger, they release it by pulling the trigger.
              In firearms (carbines, rifles, pistols, machine guns, etc.), the store is a mechanism for supplying cartridges. The magazine can be detachable or integral and rechargeable with a clip or a pack of cartridges. Types of stores vary depending on the shape and position in relation to the case: disk and box; single and multi-row; lower, upper and side. In the history of automatic weapons, all kinds of stores were used.
              Boxed, the most common type of store. They can be direct and sectorial. They are highly reliable, but have a not very large capacity.
              1. izGOI
                izGOI 4 February 2016 02: 57
                0
                Now, let's get an article about stores. you should, in my opinion, succeed.
      3. gross kaput
        gross kaput 1 February 2016 14: 19
        0
        Do not forget that between the ABC-36 bayonet and the AKshny 6X2 there were also SVT bayonets koi were also of two main types - long (SVT 38) and short (SVT-40) and the latter also had "subspecies" differing in details.
  2. wingmax
    wingmax 1 February 2016 07: 44
    +2
    Entertaining article! ++
  3. V.ic
    V.ic 1 February 2016 08: 12
    +2
    Melee weapons attract a real man. Although he came out of childhood a long time ago, it is aesthetically pleasing to hold real weapons in his hands.
  4. La-5
    La-5 1 February 2016 10: 18
    +1
    A very rare example of Soviet bayonets, valued by collectors of XO.
  5. 2news
    2news 1 February 2016 11: 00
    -3
    Quote: Ryabov Kirill
    This weapon was used for a limited period of several years, including at the initial stage of World War II, but then gave way to more advanced models.

    Apparently Mosin rifle arr. 1891 / 30gg. Nothing very perfect of those times on the cartridge of 7,62x54 mm R can not be remembered.
    1. snc
      snc 1 February 2016 11: 25
      +3
      Svt-38,40?
      1. 2news
        2news 1 February 2016 13: 50
        -2
        Quote: snc
        Svt-38,40?

        What about SVT? Taken out of service immediately after the end of the war (from production even earlier), earlier than the mosquito. Due to structural defects.
    2. revnagan
      revnagan 1 February 2016 11: 40
      +7
      SVT.If we apply the formula "weapon loves caress: cleaning and lubrication" to it in full, then it is a very worthy specimen. Even the Fritz willingly used captured SVT.
      1. 2news
        2news 1 February 2016 13: 56
        +1
        Quote: revnagan
        SVT.If we apply the formula “weapon loves caress: cleaning and lubrication” to it, then it is a very worthy specimen.

        Yes, only not for long. In a trouble-free state (adjusting the gas regulator to the maximum), the shutter stroking the barrel crust quite quickly backward, and the chamber chamber in reverse.
        It was possible to regulate, as it is written in the NSD, then the rifle served almost twice as long (it serves the hunters). Only in this position could the rifle fail at any moment. And the elimination of such a delay required a special tool and decent time.
        Quote: revnagan
        Even the Fritz willingly used captured SVT.

        Why not? The regulator to the maximum, and forward. The rifle was free. For them.
        1. V. Salama
          V. Salama 1 February 2016 15: 44
          0
          Quote: 2news
          ... The rifle was free. For them.

          The main value for them was the high accuracy of the battle of this product and the ability to increase the power of the sniper's fire. There were no analogues of its own, so they set up an optical sight - "and forth".
          1. 2news
            2news 1 February 2016 16: 49
            0
            Quote: V. Salama
            The main value for them was the high accuracy of the battle of this product.

            The usual accuracy. Not better than German Mausers. These Mausers are still appreciated by hunters.
            Quote: V. Salama
            and the possibility of increasing the power of sniper fire

            And here, by. The fact is that the SVT was made for a cartridge with a bullet "L". And the Mauser (and in general the entire German shooter) chambered with a heavy bullet (the Germans did not have a cartridge with a light one). Therefore, in this regard, Mauser was better.
            Quote: V. Salama
            There were no analogues of their own, so they put an optical sight - "and forth"

            No, they didn’t. SVT was better in that it gave a density of fire more than 2 times than Mauser. Therefore, theoretically, 1 soldier could replace two. On this her advantages ended.
            1. GRAY
              GRAY 1 February 2016 18: 41
              0
              Quote: 2news
              No, they didn’t.

              German counterpart:
              Gewehr 43 (nee G-41), the gas exhaust system G41 was changed, having stolen the solution from SVT-40.
              The production of this rifle - including with a telescopic sight continued until the end of the war.


              Czech sniper with SVT-40
              1. 2news
                2news 1 February 2016 18: 50
                +1
                Quote: GRAY
                by checking the solution with SVT-40.

                Don't fantasize. The solution was not at all unique. The gas vent was used on most of the rifle semiautomatic and automatic rifles. The fact that Russian Vika writes in this way does not mean anything yet. English Vika does not write that way, writes that she "reminds", and also writes that she "resembles" the American M1 arr. 1938 This may be the mechanism of SVT arr. 1940 "resembles" the mechanism of the American M1 arr. 1938?
                Quote: GRAY
                Czech sniper

                So what? All Soviet women snipers used SVT with optics. Established domestic optics. And half the men, too. Just because the return on SVT was weaker than on the mosquito.
                Therefore, there was no need for the Germans to fit German sights there.
                1. GRAY
                  GRAY 1 February 2016 19: 12
                  0
                  Quote: 2news
                  Therefore, there was no need for the Germans to fit German sights there.

                  I do not think that they would stand there even if they wanted to.
                  Quote: 2news
                  English Vika doesn't write like that

                  I apologize for the machine translation, but still quote:
                  The SVT series used a simple gas engine, which was soon emulated by Walter in his successor G41 (W), the production of the Wehrmacht gewehr 43 (G43 or).
                  1. 2news
                    2news 1 February 2016 19: 22
                    0
                    Quote: GRAY
                    I apologize for the machine translation, but still quote:

                    Well, then I will quote from the same place:
                    The SVT-38 is a gas-operated rifle with a short-stroke, spring-loaded piston above the barrel and a tilting bolt. [1] This configuration gained wider acceptance later. There is some dispute about who exactly first developed this operating principle, as the SVT's mechanism (as implemented in 1935 competition prototype) closely resembles Dieudonné Saive's design of 1937.
                    Here is a machine translation:
                    The SVT-38 is a gas-powered rifle with a short stroke, a spring-loaded piston over the barrel and a tilt bolt. [1] this configuration gained wider acceptance later. There is some debate about exactly who first developed such a working principle as the SVT mechanism (as implemented in the 1935 competition prototype) resembles Dieudonne Saive design of 1937.
                    Here's about "reminds":
                    The rifle was redesigned in 1943 into the Gewehr 43 utilizing a gas system somewhat similar to that on the Tokarev series of rifles, and a detachable magazine for easier cleaning. Coincidentally, the US M1 rifle followed a similar course being first designed with a gas trap mechanism which was quickly discarded in production.
                    And machine translation:
                    The rifle was redone in 1943 as part of the Wehrmacht gewehr 43 using gas, the system somewhat resembles that of Tokarev's series of rifles, and a removable cartridge to facilitate cleaning. It so happened that the American M1 rifle followed the same course to be developed with a gas trap mechanism, which was quickly put into production.
                    1. GRAY
                      GRAY 1 February 2016 20: 06
                      0
                      Quote: 2news
                      Here's about "reminds":

                      Uniquely copied. Otherwise, why the hell did they take up their G-41 after they got SVT-40 in their hands?
                      1. 2news
                        2news 1 February 2016 20: 40
                        0
                        Quote: GRAY
                        Otherwise, why the hell did they take up their G-41

                        Because the tests of 1941. the Mauser and Walter rifles failed. In addition, the G-43 has a gas mechanism without a regulator, while a gas mechanism CBT, with a regulator.
                      2. Generalissimo
                        Generalissimo 7 February 2016 05: 09
                        0
                        G-41 did not work, and therefore copied. But copying completely did not work either. This is a famous fact.
                      3. 2news
                        2news 7 February 2016 10: 29
                        +1
                        Quote: Generalissimo
                        G-41 did not work, and therefore copied.

                        Who copied? Do you have a mandragon? Saved? And who copied Tokarev?
                        Quote: Generalissimo
                        But copying completely did not work either.

                        Those. Germans could not reproduce the pre-war product of the USSR? You have a very rich imagination.
                        Quote: Generalissimo
                        This is a famous fact.

                        Such "facts" on the Internet, like fleas on a stray dog.
                      4. Generalissimo
                        Generalissimo 7 February 2016 12: 59
                        0
                        Tokarev’s. Tokarev - no one. Rather, you have a poor level of knowledge in this area. For a long time no one could reproduce Kalashnikov unlicensedly either.
                        Fleas also need to eat. Still copied a 120-mm machine gun one to one. This - they could.
                      5. 2news
                        2news 7 February 2016 13: 09
                        0
                        Quote: Generalissimo
                        Tokarev - no one.

                        and TT no one?
                        Quote: Generalissimo
                        Rather, you have a poor level of knowledge in this area.

                        Well, you would be silent on this subject.
                        Quote: Generalissimo
                        Alashnikov for a long time no one could reproduce unlicensedly either.

                        Young people in such cases usually say "rzhunemagu".
                        Quote: Generalissimo
                        Still copied a 120-mm machine gun one to one. This - they could.

                        And who copied the 120-mm mortar of the Red Army? You would at least learn the basics of the basics, or something.
                      6. Generalissimo
                        Generalissimo 7 February 2016 14: 10
                        0
                        SVT - no one. Well, explain the basics of mortar basics.
                      7. 2news
                        2news 7 February 2016 14: 21
                        0
                        Quote: Generalissimo
                        SVT - no one.

                        You know better. Probably. But nothing else that the Mandragon rifle of the beginning of the century had a gas outlet for reloading?
                        Quote: Generalissimo
                        Well, explain the basics of mortar basics.

                        Write an article, publish, and explain.
                      8. Generalissimo
                        Generalissimo 7 February 2016 15: 26
                        0
                        Nothing - even after the self-propelled guns they began to use the trigger.
                        Wash you were going.
  • Generalissimo
    Generalissimo 7 February 2016 05: 05
    0
    The troops refused them, because it was not possible to repeat all the advantages of the SVT-40, so they had to do STG under a weakened cartridge.
    1. 2news
      2news 7 February 2016 10: 32
      0
      Quote: Generalissimo
      failed to repeat all the advantages of SVT-40

      Those. failed to repeat tears and non-extraction of cartridges? And broken by the bolt receiver and chamber?
      1. Generalissimo
        Generalissimo 7 February 2016 12: 49
        0
        Even this failed ... And the Wehrmacht loved PPSh more than MP-40
        1. 2news
          2news 7 February 2016 13: 12
          0
          Quote: Generalissimo
          And the Wehrmacht loved PPSh more than MP-40

          Did he tell you about this? For a glass of beer?
          Have you looked at the photos of the war? Somewhere Germans, from advanced units, not enforcers, with PCA seen? A Soviet intelligence with MP40, complete. And with the DP-27. I note that neither SVT-40 nor MG34 / 42 they carried with them.
          1. Generalissimo
            Generalissimo 7 February 2016 14: 33
            0
            I don’t drink beer. In Stalingrad, for example.
          2. 2news
            2news 7 February 2016 14: 42
            0
            Quote: Generalissimo
            In Stalingrad, for example.

            There was no ordinary war in Stalingrad. What was there is called differently. And there was no normal supply there. Therefore, they fought with what came to hand. Not choosing good or bad.
          3. Generalissimo
            Generalissimo 7 February 2016 15: 29
            0
            What is the name of? Even when the Germans were in the boiler, the supply at one time was more than normal. The American military in Vietnam dismantled the AK-47 because it was bad and the M-16 is good?
          4. 3news
            3news 7 February 2016 15: 48
            0
            Quote: Generalissimo
            American military in Vietnam dismantled the AK-47 because it was bad and the M-16 is good?

            1. Who told you what they were taking apart?
            2. War does not always take place in the jungle.
            3. M16 is already well gone. But there is M16A4.
            4. The AK-47 has long been gone. Absolutely not. He did not have any offspring.
            5. If you give me an example of the AK-74, then keep in mind that this is the offspring of M16, not the AK-47.
          5. Generalissimo
            Generalissimo 7 February 2016 15: 52
            0
            Why don't you know anything about this?
            In the desert, this is even worse
            So what?
            No comments
            No comments
          6. 3news
            3news 7 February 2016 16: 03
            0
            Quote: Generalissimo
            In the desert, this is even worse

            Those. for some reason, do you think that weapons with an effective range of 400 m in the desert will be worse than weapons with an effective range of 300 m? And which will be the best? Not PCA, by any chance? because he has a range of effective damage of only 30 m.
          7. Generalissimo
            Generalissimo 7 February 2016 17: 15
            0
            those. Why do you think that the hidden clo (y) is not visible.
            Where did the vent pipe come from in the AK-74? ;-)
        2. aws4
          aws4 7 February 2016 19: 11
          +2
          wow .... ak74 offspring of m16 .... I won’t write anything against ... one request can be more detailed about this ... only less water and own conclusions which are not arguments for anyone ... only dry facts, you can even the diaries of the article by famous designers participating in this evolutionary branch m16-ak74)))))))))))))
        3. 3news
          3news 7 February 2016 19: 24
          0
          Quote: aws4
          only dry facts, you can even diaries of articles by famous designers

          Can't you dance a polka-butterfly?
          Everyone knows that AK were the heirs of the German MP43 / StG44, because made on their basis. Those. it was the same type of weapon using similar ammunition.
          AK-74 was the heir to the M16. Nearly. Because although it was made on the basis of M16, they could not fully reproduce M16 in the USSR. Therefore, they did what they could, i.e. weapons one step lower than M16, another subclass. It was for this reason that the ammunition was a little weaker, but the same principle of action.
          What similarities and differences in mechanisms were inside it does not matter. The main thing is that the ideology of the "German" and "American" couples was the same.
        4. The comment was deleted.
        5. Generalissimo
          Generalissimo 8 February 2016 01: 07
          0
          AK-47 is the heir to the Korobov assault rifle and first AK, ask him about the gas outlet pipe known to him only in AKM-74, let op de deel dance :-)))
        6. aws4
          aws4 8 February 2016 03: 04
          +2
          where is this great historian of firearms ???? I was late again and did not wait for an answer as the M16 degraded in ak74)))))))))) why remove the answers of these specialists so quickly, even if they hang a little, people even laugh .....
        7. Generalissimo
          Generalissimo 8 February 2016 04: 21
          0
          Log out and see him.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 4 February 2016 13: 28
    0
    Quote: 2news
    The usual accuracy. Not better than German Mausers.

    The main thing is that it is not significantly worse. The obvious thing is that the accuracy of self-loading rifles is objectively lower due to the deforming effect of the bolt on the cartridge, and the Germans noted the quality of the SVT barrel drilling right away, transferred to the German operating manual and had no known problems with it.
    Quote: 2news
    And here, by. The fact is that the SVT was made for a cartridge with a bullet "L" ...
    In general, power is usually understood as "the amount of energy per unit of time", and not just the energy of the bullet (lateral pressure, penetration) or whatever you meant.
    Quote: 2news
    No, they didn’t ...
    I will not refute, I am too lazy to search for the source, and why refute, what you yourself contradict:
    Quote: 2news
    SVT was better in that it gave a density of fire more than 2 times than Mauser. Therefore, theoretically, 1 soldier could replace two. On this her advantages ended.

    For the theoretical replacement of one soldier with two, at a distance exceeding the effective fire of a submachine gun. take a trophy "problem" rifle? Not a very smart decision. Secondly, for practical use, this soldier must be a well-aimed shooter, that is, a sniper. Well, imagine (you can read the evidence if you find it) how many snipers with such rifles are needed to disrupt the infantry offensive in the battalion's defense area. eg. The Germans were not fools and knew how to count - that's me about
    Quote: 2news
    which gave a density of fire more than 2 times than Mauser
    Although, perhaps you have taken as a basis the record of the 30s of shooting from the "Mosinka" - 64 rounds per minute?
    1. 2news
      2news 4 February 2016 13: 54
      0
      Quote: V. Salama
      the Germans noted right away, transferred to a German operating manual and had no known problems with it.

      Well yes. Where did they go? They did, of course. But at the initial cost of 0 marks 00 pfenings quite put up with them.
      Quote: V. Salama
      usually "the amount of energy per unit time", not just the energy of the bullet (lateral pressure, penetration) or whatever you mean.

      So what? Do not indulge in terms. The power of small arms is measured in joules (DE). Even the Weapons Act appears in joules.
      Quote: V. Salama
      and why disprove what you yourself contradict:

      Where is the contradiction? What does the density of fire have to do with the installation of a German optical sight.
      Quote: V. Salama
      take a trophy "problem" rifle?

      Why not? Moreover, there were no problems when setting the gas regulator to the maximum. In this case, there were problems with the resource of the rifle, but at the initial price of zero, the Germans were not interested.
      Quote: V. Salama
      Secondly, for practical use, this soldier should be a well-aimed shooter, that is, a sniper.

      Why do we need a sniper for shooting at 100-400 m? Do not fantasize. Or in the Red Army, all polls were snipers? Let me remind you that before the war, all the riflemen were armed with the SVT-40.
      Quote: V. Salama
      how many snipers with such rifles are needed to disrupt the infantry attack in the area of ​​defense of the battalion. eg.

      Well, further here "rushed pi ** and over the bumps."
      Quote: V. Salama
      Although, perhaps you have taken as a basis the record of the 30s of shooting from the "Mosinka" - 64 rounds per minute?

      Respected. Mauser's rate of fire is 15 rounds per minute. It is written in any NSD. Why are you commenting on what you don’t understand?
      1. V. Salama
        V. Salama 4 February 2016 15: 48
        0
        Quote: 2news
        Where did they go? They did, of course.

        Having problems is when an untrained soldier gets a whimsical tool in his hands. In practice, everything could have happened (at the end of the war, for example), but according to the mentality of the Germans it wasn’t customary to trust the complex without training, and punished for gouging. So I do not think that with a competent and careful approach to the product, this rifle had time to wear out during its possible operation.
        Quote: 2news
        ... but at the original price of zero, the Germans were not interested.
        Somehow you are inaccurate with the price ... The price is zero - when you wanted something, you opened the nightstand and took it. And wanting to take a trophy rifle and get it are two big differences. And they needed such a rifle - "there were no analogues" - they began to copy.
        Quote: 2news
        Do not indulge in terms. The power of small arms is measured in joules (DE).

        Yes, let it be in joules ... And I thought that the energy of a bullet is measured in joules. Regarding terms, a term is a word to denote concepts, each of which has its own content and scope. So, there is such a concept "firepower", which of course can be associated with the concept of "density of fire", but these are different concepts.
        Quote: 2news
        Let me remind you that before the war, all the riflemen were armed with the SVT-40.

        A strong argument, I didn’t know this for sure. It’s bad that Hitler didn’t know this either - that our army had already managed to completely rearm, and would not have attacked.
        Quote: 2news
        Why do we need a sniper for shooting at 100-400 m?

        So I can’t understand this, as well as special sense in replacing the Mauser on SVT in these conditions. Probably at the beginning of the war, the Germans thought to shoot back from the avalanches of the Russians, going in an endless stream to small groups of Germans entrenched in the defense.
        Quote: 2news
        Well, further here "rushed pi ** and over the bumps."
        She began to rush not from "here", it seems to me. But this again will be reduced to "firepower", so we will not discuss it.
        Quote: 2news
        Mauser's rate of fire is 15 rounds per minute. It is written in any NSD. Why are you commenting on what you don’t understand?

        I actually wrote about the "mosinka", if you noticed. The fact is that in any NSD they indicate standards for an "average trained" (average statistical) user, but the practical value of a product is not determined by these standards. So I wanted to "figure out" how you determined that one SVT at a distance of 100-400 m. In terms of fire density is 2 Mauser. I would not dare to assert this without special research.
        1. 2news
          2news 4 February 2016 18: 57
          0
          Quote: V. Salama
          this is when an untrained soldier gets a whimsical instrument

          That soldier was just as smart and adequate as you are. Want to call him a woodpecker? Start with yourself.
          Quote: V. Salama
          So I do not think that with a competent and careful approach to the product, this rifle had time to wear out during its possible operation.

          But in the Moscow Region they didn’t think so. Therefore, the SVT-40 was removed from service in 1945.
          Quote: V. Salama
          And they needed such a rifle - "there were no analogues" - they began to copy.

          Really? In fact, Dieudonné Saive and his 1937 rifle are considered to be the takers of such a scheme in Europe.
          Quote: V. Salama
          So, there is such a concept "firepower", which of course can be associated with the concept of "density of fire", but these are different concepts.

          Of course. 100 bullets from PPSh will not have the same firepower as 100 bullets of a mosquito.
          Quote: V. Salama
          It’s bad that Hitler didn’t know this either - that our army had already managed to completely rearm, and would not have attacked.

          And what does it matter that she managed there? Hitler had every chance to put Barbaross’s plan into action. And by the fall of 1941. push Sovdepia behind the Volga and Sev.Dvina. But already in July 1941. he abandoned the barbaross plan and began to weird. As a result, the Germans lost the war. From the Red Army in 1941 in general, little depended.
          Quote: V. Salama
          as well as special sense in replacing the Mauser on SVT in these conditions

          The Germans were very poorly prepared for the war. For example, they did not have handbrake. Generally. There were shortened loafers set on bipod. It turned out very expensive. And ineffectively, the machine gunners learned to knock out pretty quickly. A soldier with self-loading replaced 2 boltoviks. As a result, the Germans did not succeed with their self-loading. They didn’t succeed with the vanilla wafers such as StG44. Those. Germans failed in rifle shooting everywhere and in full.
          Quote: V. Salama
          So I wanted to "figure out" how you determined that one SVT at a distance of 100-400 m. In terms of fire density is 2 Mauser.

          Take the rate of SVT on NSD and divide by the rate of Mauser on NSD. Everything is simple. And who is there and what really knew how, it’s particular.
          1. V. Salama
            V. Salama 5 February 2016 09: 48
            0
            Quote: 2news
            Want to call him a woodpecker? Start with yourself.

            In fact, a woodpecker is one who studies physics not according to textbooks, but according to federal laws. In our case, the case is more severe. Here we position ourselves as those about whom in Russia they say that for them "... the law is not written, if it is written, it is not read, if it is read it is not understood, if it is understood it is not so."
            Quote: 2news
            But in the Moscow Region they didn’t think so. Therefore, the SVT-40 was removed from service in 1945.

            How do you know what you thought in the Moscow Region? SVT-40 is considered one of the best self-loading rifles of the Second World War. And they removed it from service because its time had passed. The T-34 tank was also removed from service and what does this prove?
            Quote: 2news
            In fact, Dieudonné Saive and his 1937 rifle are considered to be the takers of such a scheme in Europe.
            What did you mean? Being a “baker of a scheme” and a creator of a rifle with acceptable characteristics on the basis of this scheme is far from always the same. You yourself understand this and write about it: "... As a result, the Germans did not succeed with their self-loading."
            Quote: 2news
            Of course. 100 bullets from PPSh will not have the same firepower as 100 bullets of a mosquito.
            There are two errors in this statement. Let me explain it with an example: At one time, the American police, predicting difficult times, purchased 12 calories from us, having their own Moskberg Winchesters of the same caliber. This preference was substantiated by the assertion that the Saiga provides “higher firepower, which has a strong psychological effect” on potential terrorists and offenders. ” And if physics is not studied in newspapers, then we can understand that the Saiga -410 will give less firepower with an equal rate of fire with the Saiga -12.
            Quote: 2news
            ..... But already in July 1941. he abandoned the barbaross plan and began to weird. As a result, the Germans lost the war. From the Red Army in 1941 in general, little depended.

            Of course, I am not an expert in the history of military art and believed that Hitler began to be weird because he had received "on the head" from the Red Army in 1941. And from the way our soldiers defended the exit to the Volga during the defense of Stalingrad, German veterans who come to us as tourists to Mamaev Kurgan are still going crazy: only 25 meters wide? ”
            Quote: 2news
            The Germans were very poorly prepared for the war. For example, they did not have handbrake. Generally. There were shortened loafers set on bipod. It turned out very expensive. And ineffectively, the machine gunners learned to knock out pretty quickly. A soldier with self-loading replaced 2 boltoviks ...
            There are five errors in this statement, and the first of them is a violation of the rules of logic in proving something (what does the machine gun have to do with it, if “a soldier with self-loading replaced two boltoviks”). The following:
            1. V. Salama
              V. Salama 5 February 2016 09: 50
              0
              - “poorly prepared” (so to speak of anyone who lost, but this is not the reason for losing Germany). Well, you have your own main reason - "Hitler was weird," so write - Hitler was not prepared;
              “There were no handbrakes.” Why not? It’s just that there were such handcuffs - they decided to unify, they have the right. Rather, they didn’t have travel lovers, so this is not a problem - they have at their disposal industry and infantry systems of the armed forces of all Europe. By the way, the German MG-60 is based on the design of the Amerov M-42. They also use it as a "single" - on the bipod and on the machine, so what? So what kind of machine gun does the Amer have - a “handbrake” or a “machine tool”?
              - "it turned out very expensive." Sorry, bipods are expensive? At that time, they knew how to make weapons cheaply and qualitatively only in the USSR. “And ineffective ...” I apologize for what indicator is ineffective?
              “The machine gunners learned to knock out pretty quickly.” This is generally something left. Why only German machine gunners learned to knock out? Why will our machine gunner with a “handbrake” be unkillable?
              - "And a soldier with self-loading replaced 2 boltoviks ...". Please note that you write “a soldier with self-loading ...”, and not just “self-loading”, therefore, on the subconscious you understand that the quality of the “subject” in evaluating the effectiveness is no less important than the quality of the “means”. Remember: "Take the rate of SVT on NSD and divide by rate of fire ...". Sounds like using double standards. This is the first. Secondly, you are jumping off the subject of our disagreement. Let us return in essence to the original: the Germans used the SVT-40 not because this use did not cost them anything, but because they didn’t have the similar, but the best (even Walter G-43 didn’t pull on sniper, although it’s possible optics and set). And if you didn’t have your own, then why is it absolutely necessary, but to give the trophy to an average soldier who theoretically can “replace 2 boltoviks” on some section of some front where it is absolutely necessary to ensure the required fire density, since that’s how it is it is not clear that neither a submachine gun nor a submachine gun can be included in the defense system for a reason ... Well, here it’s clear, here you need to include imagination.
              Quote: 2news
              Take the rate of SVT on NSD and divide by the rate of Mauser on NSD. Everything is simple. And who is there and what really knew how, it’s particular.

              Well, if we used this way of thinking, we would not have won the war. Secondly, this is no longer interesting, since “firepower” in our case characterizes a weapon’s model, and “density of fire” is in any case a characteristic of a particular line of defense (offensive).
            2. 2news
              2news 5 February 2016 17: 33
              -1
              Quote: V. Salama
              but the reason for the loss of Germany is not this

              Including this. But the main reason is different.
              Quote: V. Salama
              "Hitler was weird"

              Not Hitler himself, but the top generals quirked. And Hitler listened to them.
              Quote: V. Salama
              It’s just that there were such handcuffs - they decided to unify, they have the right.

              My favorite bike from the Internet is a bike about a single machine gun from the Germans. In fact, the Germans did not have a single machine gun, but they did have a "single German machine gun." What is the difference? The fact that the uniform machine guns of all countries of the world (including the USSR) used ordinary rifle cartridges for firing. And the easel machine guns, special "rifle machine gun". So there were no ordinary rifle cartridges in Germany. Instead, everyone used "rifle machine guns". From this there were no normal uniform machine guns. And there were shortened easel, set on a bipod. The point is clear, I hope?
              By the way, even the lovers from this were unimportant. Because of their shortened trunks.
              Quote: V. Salama
              so this is not a problem

              Problem. Even the simplified MG42 was very complex and expensive.
              Quote: V. Salama
              The basis of the design of the Amerovsky M-60 is the German MG-42

              Don't fantasize. A single machine gun placed on the machine does not become an easel from this. This is a single machine gun (GPMG) on the machine. And the opposite is also true, MG34 placed on bipod did not become one. It was a bipod mounted heavy machine gun (MMG). Or "German Unified". A special category of perversion in the shooter.
              Quote: V. Salama
              At that time, they knew how to make weapons cheaply and qualitatively only in the USSR.

              Have you decided to make me laugh? No, there are enough clowns on this site without you.
              Quote: V. Salama
              “And ineffective ...” I apologize for what indicator is ineffective?

              It is written there.
              Quote: V. Salama
              Why only German machine gunners learned to knock out?

              Because it made sense. After the destruction of the machine gun, the density of fire of the German squad fell like an avalanche.
              Quote: V. Salama
              therefore, on the subconscious mind you understand that the quality of the “subject” in evaluating effectiveness is no less important than the quality of the “means”

              These are your fantasies.
              Quote: V. Salama
              The Germans used the SVT-40, not because this use cost them nothing, but because they didn’t have anything like that, but the best

              No, precisely because they had no stocks of weapons. They even armed the rear units with the PPSh. And that was still the "apparatus".
            3. 2news
              2news 5 February 2016 17: 38
              0
              Quote: V. Salama
              "Take the rate of SVT on NSD and divide by rate of fire ..."

              Learn the basics of math. Yes, and military planning, too.
              Quote: V. Salama
              so why is it absolutely necessary, but to give a trophy to an average soldier who theoretically can “replace 2 boltoviks” on some section of some front where it is extremely necessary to ensure the required density of fire, since everything is so incomprehensible there,

              There was nothing "badly needed" in the SVT-40. There were trophy self-loading, good. There was no problem either. No need to "invent legends" on the go.
              Quote: 2news
              Well here it is clear, here it is necessary to include imagination.

              You don’t have to. It already works for you at full speed.
              Quote: 2news
              they wouldn’t win the war.

              And did not win. Won, but not won. You cannot win anything by losing 27 million people.
              Quote: 2news
              since “firepower” in our case characterizes a sample of weapons, and “density of fire” is in any case a characteristic of a particular line of defense (offensive).

              Density of fire is characterized by the rate of fire of the weapon. At different borders, it is different. Firepower is a broader concept.
            4. V. Salama
              V. Salama 6 February 2016 09: 26
              0
              Quote: 2news
              Learn the basics of math. Yes, and military planning, too.

              Strange advice. This is clearly not the topic here - "divide the rate of fire by the rate of fire" - this is arithmetic. And "military planning" is not attached to anything here. In addition, a discipline or topic with such a name can only be taught in a school of ensigns, and that is hardly, too moronic formulated.
              Quote: 2news
              There was nothing "badly needed" in the SVT-40. There were trophy self-loading, good. There was no problem either. No need to "invent legends" on the go.

              What, the attempt of copying it by the Germans, realized in G1 (Walter) and G43 (Walter), as well as the Finns in TaRaKo, does not even convince you? Where is the legend here, and even “on the go”?
              Quote: 2news
              You don’t have to. It already works for you at full speed.

              What is this place? Poke your finger, be nice, otherwise it seems that you do not understand what fantasy is.
              Quote: 2news
              And did not win. Won, but not won. You cannot win anything by losing 27 million people.
              Why is this, explain? You are here manipulating the terms. By your logic - is it to win by becoming a Geyropa? What, the Germans have lost less, are you sure? Although in order to explain this, we must first separate our combat losses from civilian casualties, then evaluate the combat losses and civilian casualties of our enemy, and only then compare. And this, I’m sorry, is not your glade, if you can’t even name the approximately military losses of the Germans, the losses of the European states that fought as part of the Waffen SS. Here, not such specialists screwed up, the only thing that sufficed them was the unreliably substantiated statement that the losses of the civilian population of the USSR suffered more. So, the Soviet Union purposefully civilians did not destroy either Germany or Europe, is that his fault? Or did you have to level the score with carpet bombing? Try, however, if you wish.
              Quote: 2news
              ... Firepower is a broader concept.
              Firepower is another (incomparable with the density of fire) concept. Comparable to firepower, but a “wider” concept will be the concept of “combat power” and if it is correct, it will not be “wider, but“ generalizing ”.
            5. 2news
              2news 6 February 2016 20: 32
              0
              Quote: V. Salama
              "divide rate of fire by rate of fire"

              Surprise, but with military planning this is exactly what they divide.
              Quote: V. Salama
              What, the attempt of copying it by the Germans, realized in G1 (Walter) and G43 (Walter), as well as Finns in TaRaKo, does not even convince you?

              You do not tell me these tales. Someone else, please. The Germans in 1942, these are not the Chinese in 1990. Although, also not far gone. But the Finns, these yes, these then were something like the Chinese arr. 1990
              Quote: V. Salama
              Poke your finger, be kind

              Fingers are not enough.
              Quote: V. Salama
              Why is this, explain?

              You have an explanation in my quote. Have you even read it to the end?
              Quote: V. Salama
              Although in order to explain this, we must first separate our combat losses from civilian casualties, then evaluate the combat losses and civilian casualties of our enemy, and only then compare.

              I wanted to spit on the category of losses. Lost 27 million people? Lost. So the Germans won the war. But they did not win the war. A war won is when with little blood and on foreign territory.
              PS. The Germans, by the way, did not win the war either.
              Quote: V. Salama
              So, the Soviet Union purposefully civilians did not destroy either Germany or Europe, is that his fault?

              So what? Is it some kind of "special merit of the USSR"? Should you be proud of this?
              Quote: V. Salama
              Firepower is another (incomparable with the density of fire) concept.

              Well, of course.
            6. 2news
              2news 6 February 2016 20: 32
              0
              Quote: V. Salama
              "divide rate of fire by rate of fire"

              Surprise, but with military planning this is exactly what they divide.
              Quote: V. Salama
              What, the attempt of copying it by the Germans, realized in G1 (Walter) and G43 (Walter), as well as Finns in TaRaKo, does not even convince you?

              You do not tell me these tales. Someone else, please. The Germans in 1942, these are not the Chinese in 1990. Although, also not far gone. But the Finns, these yes, these then were something like the Chinese arr. 1990
              Quote: V. Salama
              Poke your finger, be kind

              Fingers are not enough.
              Quote: V. Salama
              Why is this, explain?

              You have an explanation in my quote. Have you even read it to the end?
              Quote: V. Salama
              Although in order to explain this, we must first separate our combat losses from civilian casualties, then evaluate the combat losses and civilian casualties of our enemy, and only then compare.

              I wanted to spit on the category of losses. Lost 27 million people? Lost. So, the Germans won the war. But they did not win the war. A war won is when with little blood and on foreign territory.
              PS. The Germans, by the way, did not win the war either.
              Quote: V. Salama
              So, the Soviet Union purposefully civilians did not destroy either Germany or Europe, is that his fault?

              So what? Is it some kind of "special merit of the USSR"? Should you be proud of this?
              Quote: V. Salama
              Firepower is another (incomparable with the density of fire) concept.

              Well, of course.
        2. V. Salama
          V. Salama 6 February 2016 09: 15
          0
          Quote: 2news
          Quote: V. Salama
          but the reason for the loss of Germany is not this

          Including this. But the main reason is different.
          Do not you think that this is too thoughtful to incomprehensibility - are you agreeing with me or refuting it?
          Quote: 2news
          Quote: V. Salama
          The basis of the design of the Amerovsky M-60 is the German MG-42
          Do not fantasize. A single machine gun, put on the machine, does not become easel from this.
          So I did not understand, the Amerov M-60 delivered to the machine and to the bipod is single or not single? What is fantasy here? A single machine gun, he is one, because on the machine and on the bipod. Do not ascribe to me your troubles.
          Quote: 2news
          My favorite bike from the Internet is a bike about a single machine gun from the Germans ... What's the difference? The fact that the uniform machine guns of all countries of the world (including the USSR) used ordinary rifle cartridges for firing. And easel machine guns, special "rifle machine guns". So there were no ordinary rifle cartridges in Germany.
          Your problem is that you are relaying (like something unknown to anyone except you, certainly undeniable and eternal), the statements made by experts even before you were born regarding the Germans lacking a single machine gun based on the sign of their lack of a rifle cartridge. Did the Germans go and knew that they don’t have a rifle cartridge? Any assessment is subjective and the right of any country to classify weapons according to any criteria accepted by them. But life does not stand still and your dogmas begin to contradict reality. Following your logic, in the USSR there were no light machine guns, only machine guns, since all over the world light machine guns use a rifle cartridge, and in the USSR - an intermediate one, so they just took an AK machine gun and lengthened the barrel by adding bipods. Since the mid-30s, Maxim’s machine gun in the USSR used any rifle cartridges that were supplied with the spacecraft, including the L bullet, model 1908. And what cartridges do our machine guns of other calibers shoot, more rifle ones? - Only special, but not rifle, and this is, according to your logic, an offense. So it’s not necessary to fill in about “in all countries there is always a“ single machine gun ”, this is also a special“ rifle machine-gun ”cartridge. There is no such concept (and term) and there was no such cartridge in the USSR, it turns out that there were no easel machine guns in the USSR?
        3. V. Salama
          V. Salama 6 February 2016 09: 17
          0
          Quote: 2news
          Have you decided to make me laugh? No, there are enough clowns on this site without you.
          No one has yet been able to refute this claim. Even now in Russia, take any sample of small arms designed in the Soviet era, find a foreign analogue that would be cheaper to manufacture.
          A clown is one who cannot refute an opponent and hides it behind ridiculous arguments.
          Quote: 2news
          It is written there.

          Do not tell me, where is it? Do you understand what this is about? Where it is written in your place, it turns out that it is "inefficient" because "the machine gunners learned to knock out."
          Quote: 2news
          Quote: V. Salama
          Why only German machine gunners learned to knock out?
          Because it made sense.

          Cool! Read the question carefully: "Why only German" - what were Russians - they weren't knocked out, they weren't killed, and therefore the actions of Russian machine gunners were more effective?
          Quote: 2news
          No, precisely because they did not have stockpiles of weapons. They rear units even PPSh armed.
          The controversial claim that there were no reserves, all of Europe worked for them. Do we ourselves have a lot of stocks? Following your logic, they didn’t have hair, which was cut in the concentration camps, and civilian clothes. This is just German prudence. At the end of the war, yes, there was nothing and there weren’t enough people, because the Soviet troops grind everything, and our rear was able to provide us with the necessary supplies.
        4. 2news
          2news 6 February 2016 20: 03
          0
          Quote: V. Salama
          And what cartridges do our lovers of other calibers shoot, more rifle?

          In fact, such machine guns are called not "machine guns", but large-caliber ones.
          Quote: V. Salama
          there was no such cartridge in the USSR,

          It has always been produced and is still being produced. This is a cartridge with a bullet "D".
          Quote: V. Salama
          No one has yet been able to refute this claim.

          And you are not confused by the fact that the USSR almost did not produce air-conditioned small arms? Why compare the cost of weapons and the cost of ersatz? Of course, a tricycle stroller is often cheaper than a real car. Such a comparison would be incorrect.
          Quote: V. Salama
          Do not tell me, where is it?

          Why should I make you laugh? Reread again, everything is written there. You can’t understand, well, my condolences.
          Quote: V. Salama
          Read the question carefully "why only German" - Russians were not knocked out

          Your misunderstanding of the problem is that you can not understand the specific gravities in the infantry units of different countries, which gave a machine gun. The smallest share was in the US Army (24%). The largest share, just gigantic (77%), was in the Wehrmacht. Of course, such a machine gunner sought to neutralize in the first place.
          Quote: V. Salama
          all of Europe worked for them

          Do not exaggerate.
          Quote: V. Salama
          Do we ourselves have a lot of stocks?

          Incredible amount. More than the rest of Europe combined. But most of the reserves in 1941. left to the Germans. Why not use this gift?
        5. 2news
          2news 6 February 2016 20: 03
          0
          Quote: V. Salama
          And what cartridges do our lovers of other calibers shoot, more rifle?

          In fact, such machine guns are called not "machine guns", but large-caliber ones.
          Quote: V. Salama
          there was no such cartridge in the USSR,

          It has always been produced and is still being produced. This is a cartridge with a bullet "D".
          Quote: V. Salama
          No one has yet been able to refute this claim.

          And you are not confused by the fact that the USSR almost did not produce air-conditioned small arms? Why compare the cost of weapons and the cost of ersatz? Of course, a tricycle stroller is often cheaper than a real car. Such a comparison would be incorrect.
          Quote: V. Salama
          Do not tell me, where is it?

          Why should I make you laugh? Reread again, everything is written there. You can’t understand, well, my condolences.
          Quote: V. Salama
          Read the question carefully "why only German" - Russians were not knocked out

          Your misunderstanding of the problem is that you can not understand the specific gravities in the infantry units of different countries, which gave a machine gun. The smallest share was in the US Army (24%). The largest share, just gigantic (77%), was in the Wehrmacht. Of course, such a machine gunner sought to neutralize in the first place.
          Quote: V. Salama
          all of Europe worked for them

          Do not exaggerate.
          Quote: V. Salama
          Do we ourselves have a lot of stocks?

          Incredible amount. More than the rest of Europe combined. But most of the reserves in 1941. left to the Germans. Why not use this gift?
      2. 2news
        2news 6 February 2016 19: 41
        0
        Quote: V. Salama
        Do not you think that this is too thoughtful to incomprehensibility - are you agreeing with me or refuting it?

        For some reason, it is difficult for you to understand the phrase, the meaning of which is "the main reason is not this, but something else, although this factor also played a role." If I start to write to you in such detail, then my fingers will soon "run out".
        Quote: V. Salama
        What is fantasy here? A single machine gun, he is one, because on the machine and on the bipod.

        No, it is not. I repeat it for the 38th time, but this time for the last time. Uniform machine guns "work" on normal rifle cartridges. And from the fact that you put a single machine gun on the machine, it will not become an easel. This will be a single machine gun on the machine. Because the easel machine gun is "powered" by a special modification of rifle cartridges, "machine gun" cartridges. In addition, a heavy machine gun, as a rule, has a longer barrel than single machine guns. Even if you cut off a part of the trunk with an easel pellet and put it on the bipod (as the Germans did in WW2), this will not make it one. From this, it will become a shortened bipod mounted heavy machine gun. You can call these machine guns "German uniform" if you like. But these are not real single machine guns.
        As an example, I can give you PKT and SGMT. Both are tank, but the first is single, and the second is easel. The same applies to PC and SGM on machines.
        But cut off a piece of the barrel from the SGM, adjust the bipod for it, and you will get a "single German" machine gun. This time, I hope you get it right?
        Quote: V. Salama
        Following your logic, in the USSR there were no light machine guns, but only machine guns, since worldwide machine guns use a rifle cartridge

        Light machine guns (LMG) during 2MB were made on rifle cartridges. There were few variations. For example, the well-known British Bren. In combination with the excellent Lee Anfield, the British squad had a good fire density.
        In the USA and the USSR, they went the other way. There, the department adopted heavy automatic bipod rifles (BAR and DP-27) in combination with self-loading rifles (Garand and SVT-40). I repeat again. BAR (decoding Browning automatic rifle) and DP-27 were not light machine guns, like Bren, they were heavy multi-loading automatic rifles on bipods. The American rifle turned out and the American branch had a good density of fire. Soviet rifle not it turned out, and I had to fight with a rather bulky mosquito. Therefore, the fire density of the Soviet branch was low.
        The Germans went their own way. They put a shortened heavy machine gun on the bipod. In combination with the "no" Mauser rifle, this provided a good density of fire. Only here the machine tool, even with a shortened barrel and on a bipod, was quite expensive. And after the failure of the blitzkrieg, the Germans experienced a shortage of such machine guns. And from this insufficient density of fire. Therefore, they fussed with various ersatz, such as "assault rifles".
        Quote: V. Salama
        and in the USSR - intermediate,

        In the USSR since 1946 the RP-46 light machine gun (heavy infection) was not long produced. Then it was discontinued. The next light machine gun was RPK-74. The RPK product was not a full-fledged machine gun and is not.
  • 2news
    2news 5 February 2016 12: 40
    0
    Quote: V. Salama
    SVT-40 is considered one of the best self-loading rifles of the Second World War.

    Did you come up with it now?
    Quote: V. Salama
    And they removed it from service because its time had passed.

    This is how frightened the time of a rifle, adopted for service in 1940, is. left in 1945? This does not happen.
    In addition, the Americans “ran out of time” for such weapons only in 1964. Will they be dumber?
    In addition, in 1963. adopted by SVD. This is approximately the same as the SVT-40, only the SVD worked normally. What is so, in 1945. time is gone, and in 1962 time is back?
    Quote: V. Salama
    The T-34 tank was also removed from service and what does this prove?

    Immediately after the war?
    Quote: V. Salama
    Being a “baker of a scheme” and a creator of a rifle with acceptable characteristics on the basis of this scheme is far from always the same.

    The SVT-40 is just an example of such a failure. As well as a French product. Only the French "loser" was before.
    Quote: V. Salama
    "... As a result, the Germans did not succeed with their self-loading."

    Actually, clarification is needed there. It did not work on the cartridge 7.92 × 57mm Mauser. With a cartridge of 7.92 × 33mm Kurz, the Germans did it all.
    Quote: V. Salama
    There are two errors in this statement.

    I didn’t even read. Because there is no error.
    Quote: V. Salama
    Hitler began to freak out because he received "on the head" from the Red Army in 1941.

    Examine the issue in more detail. Germans abandoned Barbarossa already in the 1st half of July. At this time, they walked ahead of schedule and Barbarossa, allegedly, fettered them and interfered with them. They abandoned this plan and switched to directive planning. Two months were fooling around, and then returned to central planning (September 1941, Operation Typhoon). But it was too late. The war was ALREADY lost.
    Quote: V. Salama
    And from how our soldiers defended the exit to the Volga during the defense of Stalingrad

    The end of 1942, this is not the middle of 1941. With Barbarossa, it would all end in the fall of 1941. And in 1942. there would be nothing.
    Quote: V. Salama
    what does the machine gun have to do with it, if "a soldier with self-loading replaced two boltoviks"

    In fact, the Germans did not have any self-charges. Self-loading were captured. And they hope for trophies, so nothing fights. In addition, the Germans had few captured SVT-40s. Regarding full-time Mausers, of course.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 6 February 2016 09: 02
    0
    Quote: 2news
    Self-loading were captured. And they hope for trophies, so nothing fights. In addition, the Germans had few captured SVT-40s. Regarding full-time Mausers, of course.
    We get a strange dialogue - I tried to bring you to this conclusion, and you give it to me as an argument, it’s not clear what you want to confirm with this. It remains only to take the next step - to understand that it is advisable to give this trophy only to experienced shooters, it is better to snipers, which the Germans did. By the way, in the serial SVT rifle, accuracy due to the greater steepness of the rifling was higher than in the sniper variant.
    Quote: 2news
    In fact, the Germans did not have any self-charges.

    Here you are too categorical, it’s better to say there were no self-charges with the required quality. And their self-loading were: Mauser, 1902, Mauser, 1906/1908, Mauser, 1916, and also the G-1942M (Mauser) and G-41V (Walter) tested on the basis of competition from 41 on a competitive basis. and, not quite his own, entered the army a year later G-43 (Walter).
    Quote: 2news
    The end of 1942, this is not the middle of 1941.
    This I wrote about yours: “And by the fall of 1941. push the Sovdepia behind the Volga ... ". It was impossible in any way not only beyond the Volga, but simply to go to the Germans to the Volga (wash their boots, so to speak), in this case Japan, in accordance with the earlier agreement with Germany, had to enter the war with the USSR. You feel how “Blitzkrieg” was covered, and with it one of the tasks of “Barbarossa”. She promised to join the war if Moscow was captured.
    Quote: 2news
    Examine the issue in more detail.
    It is interesting, on the basis of what signs did you determine that I do not own the subject of discussion?
    Quote: 2news
    Germans abandoned Barbarossa already in the 1st half of July. At this time, they walked ahead of schedule and Barbarossa, allegedly, fettered them and interfered with them. They abandoned this plan and switched to directive planning. Two months were fooling around, and then returned to central planning (September 1941, Operation Typhoon).
    Well what can I say? Here, really, there is an ignorance of the history of the Second World War, a complete misunderstanding of the essence of the historical phenomena under consideration and a complete amateurism in matters of management. Who told you that the Germans abandoned the Barbarossa plan? To talk about this, you need to at least know what a plan is.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 6 February 2016 09: 04
    +1
    One of the main tasks of the Barbarossa plan (mind you, just one, although one of the main tasks) was to take Moscow in 3-4 months, that is, before the cold weather (in mid-October it rained, which led to problems with supplying all kinds of resources , especially fuel (!), and from November 4, frost hit). Due to the problems that arose, the Germans simply darted from one task of the Barbarossa plan to another. Who told you that they were ahead of schedule? Who told you that they had been foolish for two months? They were stuck near Smolensk for these two unplanned months. What the hell was “switching to directive planning”? Any directive is a way to fulfill the original plan in the new environment. Any plan, directive, order, order is just a form of documentation and details of the decision made, which changes based on an assessment of the changing situation. The management process is continuous, the situation in the war is changing dynamically, and the plan is changing - at the lower level with orders, orders, at the upper level - with directives. Have you decided that Typhoon is something separate from Barbarossa? This is a common control technology. The situation changed, part of the troops intended for the capture of Moscow was diverted to capture Kiev (plus Smolensk, plus much more) and on September 6, 1941, Adolf Hitler issued an order to defeat the Soviet troops with his Directive No. 35, and on September 16, when the battle for Kiev was near Towards the end, the command of Army Group Center issued its own directive on the preparation of an operation to seize Moscow, codenamed Typhoon.
    Quote: 2news
    I didn’t even read. Because there is no error.
    Extremely bad case. In such cases, it is worth listening to the "doctor who advises to agree." Well, there is no mistake - it means no, we won’t even read it.
    Quote: 2news
    It did not work on the cartridge 7.92 × 57mm Mauser. With a cartridge of 7.92 × 33mm Kurz, the Germans did it all.
    What did you mean? We are here about self-loading rifles, about sniper rifles in the first place, and what does 7..92 × 33mm Kurz have to do with it? An assault rifle, in our assault rifle, is useless.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 6 February 2016 09: 07
    0
    Quote: 2news
    Immediately after the war?
    You don’t know that either? I don’t understand how you are going to use my answer to this question in your evidence, I don’t understand what already? Anyway. The T-34 tank was the best tank of the Second World War in its class, however, its time ended with the adoption of the T-1944 tank in 44, which, however, did not manage to participate in battles, so the T-34 is rightfully the best war tank. Only two models remained in service and they were removed from service as new equipment arrived: the T-34 (model 1943), mainly by 1947, and it was used during this period only in training units or as tractors. The T-34-85 (1944 model) was in service a little longer - it is clear that the rearmament of tanks with a process is more costly and lengthy than with small arms. Although this model was produced (after modernization in 1947 - in fact it is already a new model) until 1964, while in 1955 their production was completely transferred to Poland and Czechoslovakia - not only for the Warsaw Pact countries, but also for sale to third countries. T-34 was in service with the armed forces of 46 countries.
    Quote: 2news
    This is how frightened the time of a rifle, adopted for service in 1940, is. left in 1945? This does not happen.
    Why doesn’t it happen? Your words: “Therefore, the SVT-40 was removed from service in 1945.” Or do you really think you took it off because it is worn out? For reference, however: in 1945, the SVT-40 was withdrawn not from service, but from production. There is still no order to remove it from service, so in which case our reservists will still be able to fight with it, having received from the warehouses of the mobile reserve. And the time of this rifle really left, and not by 1945, but earlier. Even during the Second World War, the prevailing opinion in the USSR was that an automatic rifle under a standard rifle cartridge, as the infantry’s main weapon, had outlived itself, and the introduction of weapons under an intermediate cartridge of 7,62 × 39 arr. 1943
    Quote: 2news
    In addition, the Americans “ran out of time” for such weapons only in 1964. Will they be dumber?
    Is time gone in 1964? Maybe you forgot about the Garand M1 and M2? What is the trick?
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 6 February 2016 09: 09
    0
    Quote: 2news
    In addition, in 1963. adopted by SVD. This is approximately the same as the SVT-40, only the SVD worked normally.
    I'm sorry, “about the same thing” is this how? By design, by designation? You rush about over the bumps without hesitation I see. Somewhere you are too scrupulous, but then sculpt this ... "about", damn it ...
    Quote: 2news
    Did you come up with it now?
    And how did I give rise to such a conclusion? I will quote the source, which is at hand - A. Zhuk. Handbook of small arms. - M .: Military Publishing, 1993 .-- 735 pp., Ill. On page 537, the left column, the last paragraph: “The Tokarev rifle (SVT-1940), improved in 40, took one of the first places in the world in terms of simplicity, reliability, and especially lightness among self-loading rifles ...”. Here you can argue that "every sandpiper praises its swamp", so let's take the Finns (the Germans understand everything), who also appreciated the SVT, practically copying the Soviet prototype, made their own "TaRaKo" (the initial letters of the names of its creators are Talvenheimo, Paronen , Koivula), but they refused to mass production due to the modest capabilities of the Finnish military industry, well, it was possible that they also had a stock of captured rifles - only in 1941 they captured 17 thousand pieces. After the war, Americans also rated SVT-40 quite highly.
  • 2news
    2news 6 February 2016 19: 02
    0
    Quote: V. Salama
    I'm sorry, “about the same thing” is this how?

    Yes, like that. SVT-40 and SVD are approximately the same thing. Only SVD is a working product, and SVT-40 is not. If you do not agree with this statement, then find 3 differences.
    Quote: V. Salama
    I will quote the source, which is at hand - A. Zhuk. Handbook of small arms. - M.: Military Publishing, 1993

    And in response I will quote the inscription on the fence. The level of reliability of the sources will be approximately the same. The personal opinion of the Beetle against the personal opinion of Vasya Pupkin. It is clear that the nonsense in your little book is written.
    Quote: V. Salama
    so let's take the Finns (everything is clear with the Germans), who also highly appreciated SVT

    And who are they? There are no such shooters in the subject. Around the level of the Papuans.
    By the way, with the Germans, with whom everything is clear, everything is not easy. Somewhere at the baseboard level, they were in that time at that time.
    Quote: V. Salama
    After the war, Americans also rated SVT-40 quite highly.

    Have you written a letter about this?
    Look, this does not happen. All highly appreciated. Everyone praised. Everyone praised. And only after the war they took, and stopped releasing. Miracles, and only.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 6 February 2016 23: 24
    0
    Quote: 2news
    If you will teach history according to Soviet manuals, then you will not succeed in studying it. The maximum is zombie

    Something this all reminds me. This statement is one to one I have already made one maidanutny whole head Svidomo. Except for dumb trolling, he wasn’t capable of anything. But I did not study history by manuals, but by textbooks, documents and evidence. Perhaps this is the root of our disagreement. We have different “manuals”, GOSTs, science, and, as a result, history. What is the point then, trying to establish the truth and generally polemicize. We will not be whipped by these manuals, arguing about their quality and reliability. Though:
    Quote: 2news
    ... But at first the Germans were ahead of schedule. This became the basis for the cancellation of the Barbaross plan on July 10. For 2 months it was not an army, but a big gang of Old Man Makhno. On September 11, the Germans returned to central planning. But time was lost, and as a result, the war (not the 1941 company, but the war as a whole) was lost.
    I would read with interest the “training manual” where it is written, maybe give a reference. And what, maybe a good training manual, maybe you just misunderstood it.
    Quote: 2news
    Who knows about this arrangement except you?

    I think that many. In particular, in Moscow on Wikipedia, “The Battle of Moscow” - I came across somehow. As for the Volga - perhaps there is in the "Battle of Stalingrad", but I did not check, because I have long been aware of. However, the Internet is not your authority, so consider this as usual “Bullshit” or “zombie” propaganda.
    Quote: 2news
    Did you understand what you wrote? Did you subtract this from another "smart dude from the Internet"? Do you think there were solid dumbheads in the MO?

    Of course I understood and the Internet had nothing to do with it - I knew this before the Internet. When I was interested in reading - reference books and other literature was the sea. And the “dumbasses" from the Moscow Region, moreover, I don’t understand? Just in case, I’ll write again: SVT was removed from supply in May 1945 by the decision of the State Defense Committee. ABT was also removed because it "has outlived itself" and she, but you did not like the word "automatic". But I am not confusing the concept of "withdrawing from armaments, supplies, production".
    Quote: 2news
    How can snipers be given out that did not have accuracy of fire?
    Accuracy is an indicator of the quality of a rifle. Only the value of this indicator can be acceptable or unacceptable. For us it was acceptable. Only for 1941-1942 About 50 thousand units were produced. in the sniper version, I can even give exact numbers (34782 and 14210 pcs., respectively), however, in the future their production decreased sharply. Our famous woman sniper, who has over 300 accurate hits, preferred exclusively SVT. During the war, she was in the United States and had great fun with the political elite over the second front. I don’t remember my last name, I won’t search, anyway it’s a “party meeting” for you. For the Germans (once officially put into service), as well as for the Finns, accuracy was also acceptable.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 6 February 2016 23: 38
    0
    Quote: 2news
    Quote: V. Salama
    Here you are too categorical

    It feels like you are not reading my comments. I clearly wrote to you, those German self-loading rifles that were chambered for 7.92 × 57mm Mauser were of little capacity. On a cartridge of 7.92 × 33mm Kurz self-loading were capable.

    I read your comments. And you not only don’t read mine (“I won’t even read”), but also cheat - you take my statement from one post and attribute to it what you allegedly wrote (what does my “Here you are too categorical” mean?), And also write your own under anesthesia - continuous contradictions and absurdities. As proof, I bring my own and your source code (I inserted the date and time in brackets at the end to make it easier to search):
    Quote: V. Salama
    Quote: 2news
    In fact, the Germans did not have any self-charges.
    Here you are too categorical, it’s better to say there were no self-charges with the required quality. And their self-loading were: Mauser, 1902, Mauser, 1906/1908, Mauser, 1916, and also the G-1942M (Mauser) and G-41V (Walter) tested on the basis of competition from 41 on a competitive basis. and, not quite his own, entered the army a year later G-43 (Walter) (February 6, 09:02)

    Quote: 2news
    As a result, the Germans did not succeed with their self-loading. They didn’t succeed with the vanilla wafers such as StG44. Those. Germans failed in rifle shooting everywhere and in full. (February 4, 18:57)

    Quote: 2news
    ... Actually, clarification is needed there. It did not work on the cartridge 7.92 × 57mm Mauser. With a cartridge of 7.92 × 33mm Kurz, the Germans did it all. (February 5, 12:40)

    Quote: 2news
    In fact, the Germans did not have any self-charges. Self-loading were captured ... (February 5, 12: 40 i.e. in the same post)

    So who will understand what is there with this “prodigy”, which in addition to the Soviet (Russian) classification refers to assault rifles (assault rifles) and is not the subject of our conversation, which I already paid attention to? And we classify machine guns in another way — almost like the Germans who fired two 1915 light machine guns. Louis Schmeiser and 1918 MG-13 machine gun (Dreyze) due to the all-round lightening of the machine gun Maxim arr. 1908. But if you have your own GOST in this regard, then you will be both “black-and-white” in both hands, what is there to argue about? The foreign classification of small arms also does not rest against us. If anything is exported, then the standards of the buyer country are followed, if there are such requirements. And let them “be called at least laser blasters” there.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 6 February 2016 23: 44
    0
    Quote: 2news
    Indeed, in your case this is an extremely difficult case. You compare the power of fire PPSh and mosinki. And you do not see any difference.

    And where did I say that? If it does not, poke your finger, where? Are you missing fingers again? It seems that you have to say this in the mirror, it completely bothers your memory:
    Quote: 2news
    Of course. 100 bullets from PPSh will not have the same firepower as 100 bullets of a mosquito.

    This is where you do not have two errors and everything is correct, but you didn’t even want to read my answer. But in vain, it turns out that it was necessary to read - I talked about the Saiga there. Although, maybe it's your trolling so sophisticated.
    Quote: 2news
    T-34 was the most massive tank. He was also, by virtue of large numbers, the most destroyed tank. But he was not the best tank.

    Having an opinion about something and knowing something are two different things. This is your opinion, but there are estimates from various international experts, for example, the Americans identified the top ten there and the T-34 and, for some reason, the T-44, the British have their own opinion of the Germans, I can only advise the Internet - if you like, you'll figure it out. For us, the T-34 is the best, I agree with this - I proved myself working with literature on a whole system of indicators. Not everything is so simple, there was a period when the German T-4 (after installing the 23-caliber gun) was almost 2 years better in combat performance before the T-34-85, but our complete set of indicators was still better.
    Quote: 2news
    In fact, such a model did not exist. There was a 1940 model. And what kind of pictures by year draw on the Internet, it is not interesting.

    Firstly, I did not write about which models existed, but about which remained in service. Secondly, if you think that the T-1940 has never been modernized since 34, then your will.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 6 February 2016 23: 53
    0
    Quote: 2news
    It has always been produced and is still being produced. This is a cartridge with a bullet "D".
    This is a special long-range cartridge arr. 1930 Adopted in 1935. Because of this, Maxim had to refine the sight.
    Quote: 2news
    For some reason, it is difficult for you to understand the phrase, the meaning of which is "the main reason is not this, but something else, although this factor also played a role."

    Because, according to the rules of logic, in a dispute, after any statement, confirmations or rebuttals should be made. Or are we like two cormorants - each about his own.
    Quote: 2news
    And in response I will quote the inscription on the fence. The level of reliability of the sources will be approximately the same. The personal opinion of the Beetle against the personal opinion of Vasya Pupkin. It is clear that the nonsense in your little book is written.

    It's great that no matter what I say, you are ready to blurt out anything in return. You do so, however. If our sources constantly contradict, then the level of their reliability cannot even be approximately the same. Moreover, you decide where the rubbish is written. This is trolling or the implementation of complexes. It’s also clear to me where the rubbish is, then what am I doing here, and what are you doing? My goal is to update, expand my knowledge, share it, test my beliefs for strength. And why am I reading your posts then, what interest am I, if you don’t even try to convince me, because you don’t even know what it is and how it is done. You have no knowledge, only false information, and you think the same about me. I conclude that for myself I can’t get anything from you, but you don’t need anything from me, you’re just implementing the inferiority complex. So why will I educate you? Moreover, it was said: "Learning is light, but you have to pay for light."
  • 2news
    2news 7 February 2016 14: 17
    0
    Quote: V. Salama
    This is a special long-range cartridge arr. 1930 Adopted in 1935. Because of this, Maxim had to refine the sight.

    As always, you have a mess in your head. The very first cartridge mod. 1891, still blunt, it was just heavy. This is in addition to it in 1908. a cartridge with a pointed light bullet (M 91/08) was adopted for service. Which in 1930 was replaced by a cartridge with a bullet "L" (M 1908/30). Let me remind you that Maxims appeared in the Russian army in 1905. Those. were chambered in 1891.
    Used cartridges with light bullets in all weapons systems, except for heavy machine guns. Although the machine tools were able to use them, the main ones for them were cartridges with a heavy bullet (except in 1910-30). First arr. 1891, and then came to replace him (with a break in time) cartridge with a bullet "D" arr. 1930
    Machine guns Maxim arr. 1930 from the very beginning they were made for these cartridges and initially had 2 scales on the aiming bar. Unlike machine guns arr. 1910, which were made under a light bullet. And arr. 1905 under a heavy bullet mod. 1991 Those. rearmament of 1930 was comprehensive.
    Quote: V. Salama
    Moreover, you decide where the rubbish is written.

    Of course. After all, I understand the topic, and you just want to understand it. Therefore, give the opinions of "authoritative authors".
    Quote: V. Salama
    My goal is to update, expand my knowledge, share it, test my beliefs for strength.

    Here, besides "share them" I agree with everything.
    Quote: V. Salama
    You have no knowledge, only false information,

    Then why this dialogue? You will not be able to share. Extend knowledge, too. Why boltology?
    Quote: V. Salama
    I conclude that for myself I can’t get anything from you, but you don’t need anything from me

    You see, the same thing, but in your words.
    Quote: V. Salama
    just realize the inferiority complex.

    Really? And what, directly inferior inferiority? Or low value?
    Quote: V. Salama
    Moreover, it was said: "Learning is light, but you have to pay for light."

    Exactly. I’m teaching you, but I’m for it. I won’t do it again.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 8 February 2016 21: 35
    0
    Quote: 2news
    As always, you have a mess in your head. The very first cartridge mod. 1891, still blunt, it was just heavy. This is in addition to it in 1908. a cartridge with a pointed light bullet (M 91/08) was adopted for service. Which in 1930 was replaced by a cartridge with a bullet "L" (M 1908/30). Let me remind you that Maxims appeared in the Russian army in 1905. Those. were chambered in 1891.
    Why was it necessary to take in addition a cartridge with a light bullet mod. 1908? They have different ballistics. It will be approximately the same when shooting at a distance of 800-1000 m. Did you save money? Hardly. I will try to clear this mess by digging the story. In 1901, five experienced machine gun companies appeared in the Russian army (a total of 40 machine guns). In 1902 The Russian military department abandoned the practice of ordering machine guns abroad, having decided to establish their production at the Tula arms factory. Thanks to the efforts of the engineer of the plant, Colonel P.P. Tretyakov and the mother of the instrumental workshop I.A. Pastukhov, the first domestic machine gun was ready and tested in 1904. Being in production from 1904 to 1909, he received the name: "Machine gun model 1905." After the shortcomings identified during the Russo-Japanese war, the machine gun began active modernization of the machine gun: more than 200 changes were made, as a result, the weight decreased by 5,2 kg. In connection with the adoption in 1908 of a cartridge with a pointed bullet, the scope was changed and the range of the weapon increased. (Question: why would an imported cartridge be needed?) In the same year, the light wheeled machine of Colonel V .. Sokolov was adopted, which provides shooting while sitting and lying down. Redid by Russian craftsmen, the machine gun of Hiram Maxim was adopted in 1910.
    Quote: 2news
    Machine guns Maxim arr. 1930 from the very beginning they were made for these cartridges and initially had 2 scales on the aiming bar. Unlike machine guns arr. 1910, which were made under a light bullet. And arr. 1905 under a heavy bullet mod. 1991 Those. rearmament of 1930 was comprehensive.
    It seems to be writing the same thing, but something is incomprehensible or "they understood something is wrong."
    Quote: 2news
    It has always been produced and is still being produced. This is a cartridge with a bullet "D".
    “I congratulate you on the lie” 1935. 7,62 mm rifle cartridges with bullets were adopted by the Red Army: - D (long-range) arr. 1930; - B-30 (armor-piercing) arr. 1930; - B-32 (armor-piercing incendiary) arr. 1932; - T-30 (tracer) arr. 1930; - P (sighting) arr. 1932; - 3 (incendiary) arr. 1932; - PZ (sighting-incendiary) arr. 1935; - BT (armor-piercing-tracing); - BZT (armor-piercing incendiary-tracer).
    All new bullets adopted in the early 1930s, with the exception of the heavy bullet D, had ballistics similar to the light bullet mod. 1908 For firing a heavy bullet D at the machine gun Maxim arr. In 1910, an additional scale was introduced on the aiming rack of the machine gun (indicated by the letter "T") and the panoramic optical sight PP-1 arr. 1932

    Source: http://gunsua.net/books/chumak-russkij-7-62-mm-vintovochnyj-patron-istoriya-i-ev
    olyutsiya / glava-8-1-sovershenstvovanie-kompleksa-vintovochno-pulemetnogo-vooruzh
    eniya-i-patronov-krasnoj-armii-v-1930-h-gg.html
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 8 February 2016 21: 39
    0
    Quote: 2news
    After all, I understand the topic, and you just want to understand it. Therefore, give the opinions of "authoritative authors".
    The phrase is very incomprehensible. The one who tackles the topic usually does not contradict himself, and if the context involves proof, then instead of him does not give confirmation of what was said, like the one who only wants to understand. It is also unclear that you were already born into understanding or also turned to "authoritative authors?" As for Maxim, for me an authoritative source: Central State Military-Historical Archive. f. 497, op. 1. d. 364. l. 1. Well, I think your source will be “more authoritative”. By the way, you yourself didn’t give a single link to the document, but only: “look for the Barbarossa plan on the Internet”, for you the Internet is not credible, as much as I was told.
    Quote: 2news

    Quote: V. Salama
    You have no knowledge, only false information,

    Then why this dialogue? You will not be able to share. Extend knowledge, too. Why boltology?
    I will explain how I can. All knowledge is information, but not all information is knowledge. Knowledge is processed and learned information translated into an “internal code” and included in its own system of concepts (in this case, a concept as a form of thinking, and not as a definition), which, naturally, should not contradict the general scientific conceptual apparatus. The acquired knowledge should become a sort of missing “puzzle” in the study of reality and have strong ties with other objects, processes and phenomena of reality. And only such knowledge can become beliefs. So I think, therefore, I decided that you do not have knowledge, gave a lot of reasons. It turned out to share knowledge when someone wanted to listen to my opinion - there seemed to be no problem, at one time he even did it professionally. Well, sometimes (as it is now) it is not very possible to expand, but according to “boltology” our opinions coincide.
    Quote: 2news
    But I can add from myself that the last time I saw the T-34 in the troops was in the 80s. But this does not mean that they were not there later.
    Here, in particular, is a typical example of my misunderstanding - the absurdity and, probably, lack of knowledge. Firstly, why are you writing this, what do you want to prove or disprove? I see these tanks now, I think my grandchildren will see, because I live near the storage base. There is modern and the time of the Second World War, which was sent to the parade on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Victory in Moscow. You wanted to prove that he is still in service or what?
    I’ll share my knowledge: there is such a document called “Staff of a military unit”, it lists personnel by units, positions and specialties, all “shooting” and equipment. As for technology, it is presented in sections. In the first section - the one that is in service. There can be no T-34. In the second - special equipment, there the T-34 may be in the form of a tractor, for example, but in this case it is on supply, and not on armament. The third section is a transport technique, I do not think that it can be found there. The next section is training equipment, perhaps it still occurs in this group. In parts serving tank ranges, theoretically, the T-34s used as targets could be preserved.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 8 February 2016 21: 49
    0
    Quote: 2news
    Really? And what, directly inferior inferiority? Or low value?
    You gave me many reasons for this, but of course there were options, and since you do not refute some of my statements, you may now have understood your motivation.
    Quote: 2news
    Exactly. I’m teaching you, but I’m for it. I won’t do it again.

    I agree, I won’t either. I’ll work through the rest of your statements, which you noted as significant (you asked a question there, and it’s unusual to leave the “incomplete” somehow) and I won’t.
    Quote: 2news
    "For us" the best medium tank was the KV-1S. You don't even know that.
    Well, I really didn’t know that he was “better for you”, he didn’t go to your forums and I had almost no relatives there, all the distant ones. Perhaps you think so has its own reasons. But for us, the T-34 was the best.
    Quote: 2news
    For starters, 24 gauge.

    Let it be 24, I remember 23, I studied for a long time, therefore I remembered that the number is unusual, and is it really so important for the subject of discussion 23 or 24. It is important that when he got this gun he hit everything, pay attention, all our tanks, for the limits of their artillery fire.
    Quote: 2news
    Then, who was he better? T-34? So he was better all the way. With the exception of the power of the gun, from the beginning of the war until March 1942.

    Please note the important exception. The German burned at distances exceeding the range of the T-34 with his cannon.
    Quote: 2news
    Specifically and articulately can you explain to me what this "best" was?
    This is a whole system of indicators important for any tank. Evaluation is carried out by their totality by solving a multicriteria problem. It is important who evaluates. The British and Germans, gave great weight to the indicator "ergonomics". She, of course, did not satisfy them, but for the rest she was rated higher than her own, though right after the end of the war. Well, and with the onset of the Cold War it started - there, in general, the most important indicators were hushed up, and historical situations were chosen incorrectly for evaluation. Our ergonomics did not bother much. I’m unlikely to recall all the indicators, not my subject (and even when I studied it), except for combat characteristics such as the possibility of mass production, maintainability, a high modernization reserve (it is also called in some other way) well and somewhere else I forgot a couple of ... I won’t search, I don’t see the point, because if you say “accuracy is an indicator of the quality of a rifle” you say that it’s “Bullshit, of course. Everything affects accuracy, including the balance of the design of the gas engine (where it is) ”, then again this is not your glade. "The balance of the design of the gas engine (where it is)," is the specific quality of a particular rifle and therefore has a specific accuracy, which is its characteristic.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 8 February 2016 21: 55
    0
    Quote: 2news
    I argue with you, I do not change my point of view, but at some point it suddenly turns out that I am using your statement. ... Am I consistently setting forth my point of view?
    I gave you an example with a post dated February 6, 09:02, when I went up on my phrase quoted by you “here you are too categorical”, which was my answer to your statement that “the Germans didn’t have self-charges at all”, and I there simply listed and that’s it, the question should be settled. But you brought my phrase again, and under it you began to reason: “It feels like you are not reading my comments. I clearly wrote to you, those German self-loading rifles that were chambered for 7.92 × 57mm Mauser were of little capacity. On a cartridge of 7.92 × 33mm Kurz self-loading were capable. " I would not say that everything is consistent and consistent here. According to formal logic, if there were “no self-charges,” then there can be even a little bit of them. It’s like being a little pregnant. I took this as a dishonest method, in accordance with the rules of logic and rhetoric, such methods are considered unacceptable. That's all.

    Quote: 2news
    ... Therefore, the StG44 was a compromise. According to TTX, it was a self-loading rifle with a truncated effective destruction range (assault, not a real rifle) + a very advanced submachine gun (in fact an automatic weapon for a range of 100-150 m). And all this in one bottle.
    Now you understand?
    To begin with, it was not clear to me why to consider the “assault rifle,” I apologize for your “assault rifle” when we considered full-fledged self-loading. And I know what you write, but then it became unclear why they had “... they didn’t succeed with the vanilla wafers like StG44. Those. Germans failed in rifle shooting everywhere and in full. (February 4, 18:57) "? Do you think that they began to do it precisely because “it didn’t work on the 7.92 × 57mm Mauser cartridge”? Or because there was an urgent need (our military felt it) to have a “submachine gun” under a more powerful (high-pulse cartridge), they did it in parallel, but it did not work out very well. I, in principle, are not interested in the answer (besides, you used the word "compromise" here and I can predict the course of your thoughts), I just explain why it is not clear.
    I will not say that I received great pleasure from communication. But, in principle, it happened worse. And despite the fact that the isolation of peoples does not pass without a trace (it seems that we already have language problems), I hope the next time we will better understand each other.
  • 3news
    3news 8 February 2016 23: 38
    0
    Quote: V. Salama
    According to formal logic, if there were “no self-charges,” then there can be even a little bit of them.

    Do not cling to words. The conversation was about self-loading on a 7.92 × 57mm Mauser cartridge. And they really were not (competent).
    Quote: V. Salama
    I took this as a dishonest method, in accordance with the rules of logic and rhetoric, such methods are considered unacceptable.

    I already wrote to you, Internet, this is not a scientific conference where every word must be verified so that it cannot be interpreted in two ways, as you do. Want to do casuistry, do it.
    Quote: V. Salama
    why consider the "automatic", I apologize for your "assault rifle"

    Here we go again. In my opinion (and not in my opinion, too) an assault rifle is not synonymous with the word "automatic". You ascribe to me not my statements, and then cleverly refute them. It is not correct.
    Quote: V. Salama
    when we considered full-fledged self-loading.

    For example, what could we consider it? This was not the case in the Wehrmacht, there was only the MP43, StG44 assault rifle.
    By the way, such a weapon (and AK / AKM) is called selective-fire assault rifle correctly, i.e. self-loading assault rifle with the ability to conduct automatic fire. Those. AK / AKM, this weapon is a step below the ABC-36 and AVT-40, which were full-fledged selective-fire rifle. Those. degradation of SA arr. 1949 compared to the Red Army 1936. (ABC-36) is available. Another thing is that all of these ABC-36 and AVT-40 did not work normally and had to use ancient mosquitoes. But this was not a reason to slide down to the level of selective-fire assault rifle. But rolled down. From incompetence, of course.
    In the Red Army and even subsequently in the SA, there was never a full-fledged self-loading. Yes, the great and terrible USSR could not create a full-fledged self-loading rifle on a rifle cartridge. Instead, they took an unusable SVT-40, slightly altered it and assigned it as a sniper, calling it SVD. The resource at the same time remained the same, trashy. But the sniper shoots less often, so he has enough rifles to replace him for a longer time. In addition, there are relatively few snipers. And so they got out.
    Of course, a sniper mosquito is better than SVD. But it was impossible to leave the mosquito, they would laugh.
    Quote: V. Salama
    Do you think that they began to do it precisely because “it didn’t work on the 7.92 × 57mm Mauser cartridge”?

    No, well, you obviously don't read me. 100 times I wrote to you that because of the high cost of MG, the Germans experienced problems with the density of fire. Therefore, they began to make automatic ersatz at 7.92 × 33 mm Kurz.
    Quote: V. Salama
    I hope next time we will better understand each other.

    Have a nice one you too.
  • 3news
    3news 8 February 2016 23: 19
    0
    Quote: V. Salama
    Anyone who tackles the topic usually does not contradict himself

    That's just how I am. Only you somehow do not understand everything.
    Quote: V. Salama
    if the context suggests evidence

    Evidence is proposed at a scientific conference. They are not superfluous for defending a dissertation. Here I do not find any sense to "litter" them.
    Quote: V. Salama
    By the way, you yourself did not give a single link to the document

    It is written above why.
    Quote: V. Salama
    You wanted to prove that he is still in service or what?

    No need to look for a cat where it is not. I just wrote you what I saw.
    Simply relate to communication on the Internet. This is entertainment, not work.
    Quote: V. Salama
    But for us, the T-34 was the best.

    He was not the best even for you. He was the only one, after a year of small-scale production, they refused from KV-1C (there was no production base for it). These are different things.
    Quote: V. Salama
    having received this gun he hit everything, pay attention, all of our tanks, beyond the limits of their artillery fire.

    Do not exaggerate. There was nothing superb about the KwK 37 gun. Superb was in the cumulative cartridge Gr. 38 HL. But cumulative cartridges have their own "troubles". Therefore, in the spring of 1942. The KwK 37 was replaced by the KwK.40 L / 43, and in the spring of 1943. at KwK.40 L / 48. They were more versatile, they fired the whole range of ammunition.
    Quote: V. Salama
    The German burned at distances exceeding the range of the T-34 with his cannon.

    In fact, at 1.5 km, the Gr.38 HL / A burned through 70 mm of armor. And what did the BR-350A beat at such a distance? Tears
    Quote: V. Salama
    mass production capability, maintainability, high modernization reserve

    The T-34 was a very expensive and low-tech machine. Just look at its body. Very difficult to manufacture, and very expensive. The myth of the simplicity of the T-34. it is just a myth. Another Soviet.
    Maintainability is not very important if the design is reliable. Maintainability was important for Soviet products, as constantly had to repair something. This was not normal.
    He had no reserves for modernization of the T-34. The service circle was increased to 1600 mm, but the new gun was squeezed in there only the second time. And even then, the crew was like a herring in a barrel. Yes, and riding on fuel tanks. Suicide bombers.
    Ergonomics, this is not a fad. The crew needs to fight (work), and in convenience it is easier and better to do it.
    You can continue further.
    Quote: V. Salama
    Everything affects accuracy, including balanced design of the gas engine (where it is)

    Those. Do you want to argue with this statement of mine? Believe that the balance of the gas engine does not affect the accuracy? And why do they make automatic machines with balanced automation now, in your opinion?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • 2news
    2news 8 February 2016 22: 38
    0
    Quote: V. Salama
    Why was it necessary to take in addition a cartridge with a light bullet mod. 1908?

    And then, that even then there was a division of rifle cartridges into "rifle" and "machine gun". Later, after the spread of light and single machine guns, machine gun cartridges became "cartridges for heavy machine guns." If interested, then even later from the rifle were allocated "weakened rifle" cartridges, which later became known as "intermediate". Those. process in dynamics.
    By the way, in the West, "rifle" cartridges (those for rifles and uniform, including light machine guns) looked a little different in those days, not like in the USSR.
    Quote: V. Salama
    Redid by Russian craftsmen, the machine gun of Hiram Maxim was adopted in 1910.

    This is a very disturbing phrase, "remade by Russian craftsmen." In my memory, this usually did not lead to anything good. It didn't work this time either. In 1930. had to go back to the slightly modified 1905 model. The one that was under the "machine-gun" cartridge (with a heavy bullet). And at the same time, a new such cartridge with a heavy bullet "D" to be adopted.
    Those. thanks to the efforts of the "Russian craftsmen" rubbish has been produced for 20 years.
    Quote: V. Salama
    “Congratulations to you, lied”

    It’s amazing. Then write everything the same as I did in the commentary on February 7, 2016, 14:17, but at the same time manage to convict me of a lie. You are an amazing instance.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 7 February 2016 00: 21
    0
    Quote: 2news
    Indeed, in your case this is an extremely difficult case. You compare the power of fire PPSh and mosinki. And you do not see any difference.
    It is not true, I compared Saiga-12 with Saiga-410. And in your statement about PPSh and Mosinka, I missed the prefix "not". It turns out that you agreed with me, not objected. In context, this was not necessary, however. But still, this is my mistake, I admit.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 10 February 2016 21: 59
    0
    Quote: 3news
    Do not cling to words. The conversation was about self-loading on a 7.92 × 57mm Mauser cartridge.
    I apologize, I did not cling - this is my opponent clinging to the insignificant for the subject of discussion - "... not 23 calibers, but 24., ... not a" machine gun ", but an easy-to-fire machine gun .... I didn’t react to a bunch of typos, reservations, and jambs, he thought he was joking.
    Quote: 3news
    I already wrote to you, Internet, this is not a scientific conference where every word must be verified so that it cannot be interpreted in two ways, as you do.

    Wildly sorry, it turned out ugly. I didn’t subscribe to the page — the mailbox is clogged up, but I don’t have time to clean, and something happened to the computer, it became buggy, it works slowly — you don’t get too full and for some reason new comments ceased to appear on the top line when you re-enter the page. That's why I probably missed your post. Then I’ll find it for sure and if you asked something there, I’ll surely answer if it’s what’s in your soul, but it may not be all right away — the time pressure is small, I try to turn on the computer every other day, and on weekends I don’t go up, I recover by skiing. As for your statement, I have to disagree. This approach leads any controversy to a standstill. In two ways, nothing can be interpreted, you can only consider the “other face” of the object in question, that is, give your definition of the concept as a necessary and sufficient set of essentials in the object under consideration from the standpoint of your interests. Your approach can have only one goal - “manipulation of consciousness” as a goal located in the area of ​​another, hidden main goal. There are true options here. In short, then on the example of Leo Tolstoy, who in his "Pedagogical Diaries" stated the following, that: "Training and education is a single process. You cannot educate without passing knowledge. All knowledge is educational. ” The key in our case is his last statement. If our knowledge of the same is so very different, then we are brought up differently. Which, in turn, suggests that we are in different positions from the point of view of science or ideology, with very complex contradictions. Another question - are these contradictions antagonistic or not? Communication with 2news, his inability and unwillingness to somehow take the other side in general, cause suspicion that this is some kind of “fighter of the invisible front of the information war”. Most likely, it’s ideological, it’s too poorly prepared for the paid, although it will make its contribution - that it’s not “blow your ears”, but there will be an audience who, although they have a small share, will still have at least something, but there will remain doubts. The reception is ancient pyramids, I think, but from the closest - it is undoubtedly Goebbels as a theorist.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 10 February 2016 22: 03
    0
    Quote: 3news
    For example, what could we consider it?

    On the example of our CBT. This was the original subject of our disagreements, and then my opponent went into distracting maneuvers. Well, as in the song in general: "... it spins like in a frying pan, then it jumps like a louse on a comb ...". Let me remind you, in short, my basic position: There was a SVT rifle and a little ABT in concept, as the infantry’s main weapon. There were problems of exploitation (although the Germans learned to smooth them, and our naval ones, due to a higher level of education, too), there were problems in production, but for its time it was undoubtedly a step forward in our armament. Based on the assessment of the methods of warfare in changing conditions, there was an understanding of the need for snipers to have a self-loading rifle. Which I created on the basis of CBT, I agree that not everything turned out successfully, but acceptable. Then the “time” of the SVT (AVT) was gone, removed from the supply, but not from the armament. (For a long time they didn’t shoot Mosinka in a sniper version. I was at your training camp for “reservists”, in Pervomaisk-on-Beg in 1988 they gave Mosinka, his condition was just from the factory). In particular: “The requirement to increase the combat effectiveness of submachine guns with respect to increasing the range of actual fire and bringing the latter to about 500 m with a corresponding increase in the accuracy of battle is beginning to appear in the troops” - from the report of the Chief of the Artillery Arms Operation Department of the GAU, Major General of the Engineering and Artillery Talakin’s service to the deputy chief of GAU, Lieutenant General Chechulin, August 7, 1944. Source: TsAMO, f. 81, op. 12084, d. 29, l. 9. Now in the “West” even terms have appeared, I don’t remember (not my meadow) what are the names of the fighters, divided by type of “rifleman” and zones of responsibility of fire into categories: - 200-400m., 400 - ... and so on where something like that, in ranges I could be mistaken. It doesn’t matter to us. As the saying goes, "knowledge of trends frees from the need to know the details." The important thing is that 2news, I don’t know why, equates SVT and SVD, believing that this is a return to the old concept of the infantry’s main armament. But, the SVD was created immediately like a sniper rifle. One can assume why, I heard that in the "west" a self-loading rifle is considered to be not a sniper rifle. A sniper rifle is a “bolt gun” Well, you can agree with this approach in the USA, in particular. They never "defended the Fatherland" in our understanding of this. They used to fight like a safari - “flew into a foreign country and shoot the remaining“ Papuans ”after the bombing. They may not need such a rifle, but it will do for us — it will find its niche in the weapons system, and in the area of ​​responsibility of sniper fire, and in terms of the degree of protection of the targets hit. On the other hand, in the "West" it seems like there are already self-loading large-caliber ones. Well, God be with them, they will find and formulate their sign of classification. Us what? But for me this is generally the “left” move of 2news, I think that he just wanted to jump off the subject of discussion in order to troll.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 10 February 2016 22: 06
    0
    Quote: 3news
    By the way, such a weapon (and AK / AKM) is called selective-fire assault rifle correctly, i.e. self-loading assault rifle with the ability to conduct automatic fire.
    Well, we already discussed before, let it be right there. We do not take this term so strictly and write if we consider it necessary, through the bracket “automatic” (assault rifle).
    Quote: 3news
    But rolled down. From incompetence, of course.
    If you take my rationale logically-sequentially, it turns out that the concept of "competence", to put it mildly, is deeply "party". Simply and very briefly, “competent” or “incompetent” - depends on the socio-political position of a particular person.
    Quote: 3news
    But it was impossible to leave the mosquito, they would laugh.
    Well, you get it, yes. Nobody laughed among their own, treated with trepidation and respect, the sight of course can be changed to "enlightened". Yes, in general, we have plenty of modern snipers, including “boltoviks”. Even Stephen Seagal bought one of the models, showed on TV how he arrived, chose. I was pleased to admiration. I don’t know what kind of “specialist” he was, he wasn’t interested, but for you he’s definitely “sucker,” I think.
    Quote: 3news
    No, well, you obviously don't read me.

    Do I have something with my head? Yes, I returned to the beginning for sure - “On the example of what WE could consider it?”. On the one hand, I showed inattention, on the other hand - there was a reason, well, I did not expect such a setup. If it's you, then I apologize. Of course, I understood that you would want to finalize our topic by completing it logically, so you didn’t leave the page completely so as not to seem impolite. But judging by the new Nick, I decided that one “fighter of the invisible front” decided to change another or you are just from the same company. In general, the situation is strange. Now I’ll think about what to do. I don’t play such games at all. Although I consider it my duty to refute the false, if I consider this false to be harmful. But not in this case, here the meaninglessness of our dialogue is obvious.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 10 February 2016 22: 09
    0
    Yes, I read, your post is the same - from my point of view, half-truth, even outright lies, incompetence and unwillingness to argue normally. You yourself confirm this with the following statement:
    Quote: 3news
    Evidence is proposed at a scientific conference. They are not superfluous for defending a dissertation. Here I do not find any sense to "litter" them.

    This also means that you don’t know what “conviction” is like a polemic, where proof of the truth and denial of the false are supposed. My knowledge is beliefs, but this does not mean that I am not able to change my mind, but in order to change my mind I need to change my mind. You use such a technique as “suggestion”, this is a specific technology. It seems that you also gained knowledge through suggestion, if you are not a bot, then this is the main reason for your "mess" in your head. I could refute all your subsequent misconceptions, if the opponent needed it and give the evidence that is at hand, even agree to search (I do not have a thesis). But this is not our case - there is no desire and meaning to go along the second round. Yes, and promised to "not teach." Therefore, I also relieve myself of the responsibility to respond further and dump the page completely. Be healthy.
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 10 February 2016 22: 13
    0
    I don’t understand where did the "tovarischa" go, who can say? I just was ... They couldn't have driven skulls into the dust so quickly. Quiet with yourself ...
  • 2news
    2news 7 February 2016 13: 39
    0
    Quote: V. Salama
    And where did I say that?

    In your comments. I do not intend to re-read them and re-analyze them.
    Quote: V. Salama
    For us, the T-34 is the best,

    "For us" the best medium tank was the KV-1S. You don't even know that. Musolite the T-34 from all sides.
    Quote: V. Salama
    for example, Americans have identified

    For example, Americans can shuffle their definition in ..., well, I'll tell you later.
    Quote: V. Salama
    when the German T-4 (after installing a 23-caliber gun) was almost 2 years better in combat performance (after installing a 23-caliber gun)

    For starters, 24 gauge.
    Then, who was he better? T-34? So he was better all the way. With the exception of the power of the gun, from the beginning of the war until March 1942. Also, the T-34/85 gun in 1944/45 was more powerful than the German L48. But a powerful weapon, this is not the whole tank.
    In addition, compare the Pz.KpfW.IV with the T-34 produced at least 1942. (this is not a separate model, just the T-34 was constantly changing in the course of production, even slightly different T-34s were produced at different factories, but they were all called T-34 mod. 1940) is no longer correct, because The T-34 of those times is corny heavier (cast, thicker parts, towers of a different shape, etc.). And home-grown "comparators" do not like to compare it with the Pz.KpfW.V. To the screams "The panther is heavier." Therefore, it is "correctly compared" with the less heavy Pz.KpfW.IV.
    Quote: V. Salama
    but our complete set of indicators was still better.

    Specifically and articulately can you explain to me what this "best" was? So it was written in the manual for lecturers of district committees?
    Quote: V. Salama
    Secondly, if you think that the T-1940 has never been modernized since 34, then your will.

    It was modernized and simplified at the same time. But the model was arr. 1940 (until T-34 arr. 1944 or, as it is called on the internet, T-34/85). See above for more details.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • 2news
    2news 7 February 2016 02: 48
    0
    Quote: V. Salama
    but you’re cheating - you take my statement from one post and attribute to it what you allegedly wrote

    Wow. Nice one. I argue with you, I do not change my point of view, but at some point it suddenly turns out that I am using your statement. How can this be if I consistently state my point of view?
    Quote: V. Salama
    So who will understand what is there with this “prodigy”, which in addition to the Soviet (Russian) classification refers to assault rifles (assault rifles) and is not the subject of our conversation, which I already paid attention to?

    Apparently it is necessary to explain in detail (and I recently did this already, but didn’t you understand again?):
    1. The Germans didn’t succeed on the 7.92 × 57mm Mauser cartridge.
    2. On the 7.92 × 33mm Kurz cartridge, the Germans obtained self-loading with a reduced effective destruction range (assault rifle).
    3. The Germans did not do the self-loading assault rifle. They were interested in automatic weapons to replace their machine guns. But they failed to balance the recoil momentum. Therefore, the StG44 was a compromise. According to TTX, it was a self-loading rifle with a truncated effective destruction range (assault, not a real rifle) + a very advanced submachine gun (in fact an automatic weapon for a range of 100-150 m). And all this in one bottle.
    Now you understand?
    Quote: V. Salama
    But if you have your own GOST in this regard, then you will be both “black-and-white” in both hands, what is there to argue about?

    Why not to you? And besides, I have a generally accepted classification. So it is accepted in the world. Want to reinvent the wheel, reinvent.
    Quote: V. Salama
    The foreign classification of small arms also does not rest against us.

    I have even shown you, using the example of PC and SGM, how this "foreign classification" is consistent with domestic weapons. And you, everything does not care.
  • Generalissimo
    Generalissimo 7 February 2016 04: 45
    0
    They did not want anything, just the captured SVT-40 captured at the beginning of the war were demolished, and they (and not machine guns) had to be replaced with something. But at 7.92 × 57mm it did not work and therefore weakened it to 7.92 × 33
  • 2news
    2news 7 February 2016 10: 37
    0
    Quote: Generalissimo
    simply captured SVT-40 captured at the beginning of the war were demolished, and they (and not machine guns) had to be replaced with something

    How can something trophy be demolished and require replacement? What kind of "weapons system" is this? Trophy, this is a nice bonus, not the main weapon.
    Quote: Generalissimo
    But at 7.92 × 57mm it did not work and therefore weakened it to 7.92 × 33

    Read my comment again.
  • Generalissimo
    Generalissimo 7 February 2016 12: 55
    0
    Just like boots. It was officially adopted by the Wehrmacht and issued to soldiers.
    And what was in my incomprehensible? STG was made to replace the SVT and MP-40 and not machine guns.
  • 2news
    2news 7 February 2016 13: 06
    0
    Quote: Generalissimo
    STG was made to replace the SVT and MP-40 and not machine guns.

    StG turned out to replace the MP40. Even for the replacement of self-loading on a rifle cartridge (we will leave its quality aside) they were not suitable.
  • Generalissimo
    Generalissimo 7 February 2016 14: 35
    0
    They were made as an ersatz replacement of SVT-40. Not machine guns anyway!
  • 2news
    2news 7 February 2016 14: 46
    -1
    Quote: Generalissimo
    They were made as an ersatz replacement of SVT-40. Not machine guns anyway!

    Do you understand Russian? How many times can you write the same thing? How can something be done to replace trophies? Trophy, this is a bonus. Today is, tomorrow is not.
    It was done to increase the density of fire separation. The fire density of the compartment was provided by MG (and not the trophy CBT). Therefore, it was done to replace MG. Not a complete replacement, of course. Partial
  • Generalissimo
    Generalissimo 7 February 2016 15: 37
    0
    This is when they themselves picked up on the battlefield and not when the officer gave it to you according to the inventory, and an index was assigned to it, such as Czech tanks.
    But this is demagoguery! They planned to give machine gunners?
    There were no problems with the availability of MG, the CBT were demolished.
  • 3news
    3news 7 February 2016 15: 50
    0
    Quote: Generalissimo
    This is when they themselves were picked up on the battlefield, and not when the officer gave it to you according to the inventory, and an index was assigned to it, such as Czech tanks

    So what? What does this confirm?
    Quote: Generalissimo
    They planned to give machine gunners?

    And these were machine guns?
    Quote: Generalissimo
    There were no problems with MG availability.

    Of course. It was during the war that they were cheapened as they could.
  • Generalissimo
    Generalissimo 7 February 2016 16: 04
    0
    And what should?
    Then they planned to replace which soldiers and which weapons?
    So with everything ...
  • 3news
    3news 7 February 2016 16: 18
    0
    Quote: Generalissimo
    Then they planned to replace which soldiers and which weapons?

    Learn the materiel. I'm tired of you. If you want to have fun, find yourself another object.
  • Generalissimo
    Generalissimo 7 February 2016 17: 10
    0
    Tired, it's good ... Well, have fun with someone else.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • 2news
    2news 7 February 2016 15: 03
    0
    Quote: V. Salama
    I already did one Svidomo

    I don’t know if it’s sadom or not, but think about it.
    Quote: V. Salama
    I would read with interest the “training manual” where this is written

    Read Barbarossa's plan. It is in the public domain. And also read about the hostilities in the summer of 1941. This is also everywhere. No "special links" are needed for this.
    Quote: V. Salama
    I think that many.

    There is no need to think in such cases. It is necessary to provide links to documents. This you do not have and cannot be. Because these are your "assumptions".
    Quote: V. Salama
    SVT was removed from supply in May 1945 by the decision of T-bills

    From production. Those. for some reason, the production of this "wonderful vanderwafe" was discontinued. Apparently "dumb from MO".
    Quote: V. Salama
    ABT was also removed because it "has outlived itself" and she, but you did not like the word "automatic"

    Dear you are my man. It doesn't matter what the name of ABT is. In fact, it was not an automatic rifle, it was selective-fire rifle (SFR). Those. self-loading rifle with the ability to conduct ed. fire. Those. it was exactly the same insanity as the ABC-36.
    Quote: V. Salama
    Accuracy is an indicator of the quality of a rifle.

    Bullshit, of course. Everything affects accuracy, including balanced design of the gas engine (where it is).
    Quote: V. Salama
    For us it was acceptable.

    Actually, there are generally accepted norms. If it was acceptable to you, this does not mean that it was generally acceptable.
    Quote: V. Salama
    however, in the future their production declined sharply.

    Not reduced, but stopped (sniper). Because The production of sniper mosquitoes was restored.
    Quote: V. Salama
    and great political elite there about the second front.

    Wah! I am amazed. What are the successes of this semi-finished product, it turns out.
    Quote: V. Salama
    For the Germans (once officially put into service), as well as for the Finns, accuracy was also acceptable.

    How many times do you have to write that this is "information nothing"? They also took the PPSh into service. And TT. They generally accepted and used everything that fell into their trophies. It is our "weighty argument".
  • 2news
    2news 6 February 2016 12: 13
    0
    Quote: V. Salama
    You don’t know that either?

    I understood you. The difference between "discontinued" and "removed from service" you do not catch. In vain.
    In addition, the T-34 in the USSR in 1946. 25 tanks were produced at three plants. Those. as if after the war. But I can add from myself that the last time I saw the T-914 in the troops was in the 34s. But this does not mean that they were not there later.
    Quote: V. Salama
    The T-34 was the best WWII tank in its class.

    Did you come up with this yourself? Or read from the next "smart dude on the internet"? The T-34 was the most massive tank. It was also, by virtue of its large number, the most destroyed tank. But it was not the best tank. Even in a class of its own. In general, the apparatus was rather technically backward and constructively sloppy.
    Quote: V. Salama
    T-34 (1943 model)

    In fact, such a model did not exist. There was a 1940 model. And what kind of pictures by year draw on the Internet, it is not interesting.
    Quote: V. Salama
    And the time of this rifle really left, and not by 1945, but earlier.

    Goofy. But is it possible from this place a little more in detail?
    Quote: V. Salama
    The prevailing opinion was that the automatic rifle under the standard rifle cartridge, as the main weapon of the infantryman, had outlived itself, and the introduction of weapons under the intermediate cartridge 7,62 × 39 arr. 1943

    For starters, the SVT is not an automatic but a self-loading rifle. Besides, I really know one country with sick in the head "specialists", where such an opinion prevailed. True, not for long, only until 1974. But this was, neighing in the world over these "entertainers" is not weak.
    Quote: V. Salama
    Maybe you forgot about the Garand M1 and M2?

    Garand M2, is this your Garand modification? Do you release it yourself, in the garage? Or is this how you call the Marine Garand on the 7,62 × 51 mm NATO cartridge? And even in this case, I want to upset you, it's still a rifle cartridge. Not intermediate, as "smart dudes on the internet" sometimes write.
  • 2news
    2news 6 February 2016 10: 59
    0
    Quote: V. Salama
    was the capture of Moscow in 3-4 months

    Nevertheless, I recommend you write about what you know. And not just about anything. According to Barbarossa, Moscow was to be taken in August (until the 20th). And the war on the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line along the Northern.Dvina and Volga should have been completed at the end of September.
    But at first the Germans were ahead of schedule. This became the basis for the cancellation of the Barbaross plan on July 10. For 2 months it was not an army, but a big gang of Old Man Makhno. On September 11, the Germans returned to central planning. But time was lost, and as a result, the war (not the 1941 company, but the war as a whole) was lost.
    Quote: V. Salama
    Extremely bad case.

    Indeed, in your case, this is an extremely difficult case. You are comparing the fire power of the PPSh and Mosinka. And you don't see any difference. Another would be the "power of fire" from a slingshot would be compared.
    Quote: V. Salama
    We are here about self-loading rifles,

    Just in case, I inform you that the StG44, like the AK / AKM, is a low-power self-loading rifle with a built-in function of submachine guns. And you can call them at least laser blasters.
    Quote: V. Salama
    An assault rifle, in our assault rifle, is useless.

    You would have to figure out the essence of the weapon, for starters.
    PS. In our opinion, i.e. According to GOST (don't be surprised, there is one), submachine guns are also submachine guns. This indicator (automatic) characterizes the automatic rate of fire. And nothing else. The foreign counterpart to the term "assault rifle" is the term SMG, not assault rifle.
  • 2news
    2news 6 February 2016 11: 39
    0
    Quote: V. Salama
    it is advisable to give this trophy only to experienced shooters, it is better to snipers, which the Germans did

    How can snipers be given out that did not have accuracy of fire?
    Quote: V. Salama
    By the way, in the serial SVT rifle, accuracy due to the greater steepness of the rifling was higher than in the sniper variant.

    Did you understand what you wrote? Did you subtract this from another "smart dude from the Internet"? Do you think there were solid dumbheads in the MO?
    Quote: V. Salama
    Here you are too categorical

    It feels like you are not reading my comments. I clearly wrote to you, those German self-loading rifles that were chambered for 7.92 × 57mm Mauser were of little capacity. On a cartridge of 7.92 × 33mm Kurz self-loading were capable.
    Quote: V. Salama
    in this case, Japan, in accordance with the previously concluded agreement with Germany, was to enter the war with the USSR.

    Who knows about this agreement besides you? Do not juggle with "ideologically correct" assumptions, we are not at a party meeting.
    Quote: V. Salama
    that I do not own the subject of discussion?

    Write nonsense.
    Quote: V. Salama
    This is where the real ignorance of the history of the Second World

    If you will teach history according to Soviet manuals, then you will not be able to study it in any way. The maximum is zombie.
  • Cat man null
    Cat man null 6 February 2016 23: 30
    0
    Quote: 2news
    Germans abandoned Barbarossa already in the 1st half of July. At this time, they walked ahead of schedule and Barbarossa, allegedly, fettered them and interfered with them. They abandoned this plan and switched to directive planning. Two months were fooling around, and then returned to central planning (September 1941, Operation Typhoon). But it was too late. The war was already lost.

    Quote: 2news
    The end of 1942, this is not the middle of 1941. With Barbarossa, it would all end in the fall of 1941. And in 1942. there would be nothing.

    Don't you think that you are contradicting yourself?

    And - yes .. you are only talking about "nemtszah" .. are they like a hot knife through butter? Or did something bother them? (I know the answer, your version is interesting)?
  • 2news
    2news 7 February 2016 10: 47
    0
    Quote: Cat Man Null
    Don't you think that you are contradicting yourself?

    I do not see any contradiction.
    Quote: Cat Man Null
    Or was something bothering them?

    Of course, it got in the way. Germany's top military leadership was in the way. And the "company in France" got in the way. The trick that the German commanders could not throw out in France, they threw out in the USSR. The first time Hitler cut them off, for which he became "screwed in everything." And, apparently, even he believed it, once he was silent for the second time. As a result, Germany lost the war. Back in late summer, early autumn 1941. And he had to poison himself. But already in 1945.
    In 1941 there were other factors. But I described to you the main one.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Generalissimo
    Generalissimo 7 February 2016 05: 01
    0
    In each compartment there was a soldier with SVT. When set, when not. They considered them a light machine gun.
  • Generalissimo
    Generalissimo 7 February 2016 04: 59
    0
    Because they didn’t have one! The rifle was officially in service, used for a long time and for a careless attitude - punished.
  • Amurets
    Amurets 1 February 2016 11: 49
    +3
    Quote: 2news
    Apparently Mosin rifle arr. 1891 / 30gg. Nothing very perfect of those times on the cartridge of 7,62x54 mm R can not be remembered.

    SVT-38 and SVT-40 and AVT-40. The Germans and Finns appreciated them, we valued only the border guards. These rifles required careful maintenance and high-quality lubrication. According to Novikov's recollections. V.N: "According to the principle of operation, the Simonov rifle
    was built on the basis of proven in practice
    system. When constructing its individual nodes
    and mechanisms the author showed a lot of ingenuity and before
    beating great creative success and yet she
    turned out to be relatively difficult to manufacture and
    pollution sensitive study
    fluctuations in air, etc. Although these defects
    were associated with the design of the cartridge sleeve koto
    Rogo has a protruding flange (edge), for
    made it difficult to use it in automatic
    rifles with a traditional store nonetheless
    it was decided to continue the search to create iodine
    existing cartridge of a more reliable system "
    1. 2news
      2news 1 February 2016 14: 03
      -1
      Quote: Amurets
      These rifles required careful maintenance and high-quality lubrication.

      I will copy from my other comment:
      "Yes, only not for long. In a trouble-free state (adjusting the gas regulator to the maximum), the shutter stroking the barrel crust quite quickly backward, and the chamber chamber in reverse.
      It was possible to adjust, as written in the NSD, then the rifle ideally served almost twice as long (it serves the hunters). Only in this position could the rifle fail at any moment. And the elimination of such a delay required a special tool and decent time.
      "
      Quote: Amurets
      Although these defects were associated with the design of the cartridge, the sleeve of which has a protruding flange (edge), which made it difficult to use in automatic rifles with a traditional magazine

      This is nonsense, of course. What does the gas engine problem have to do with the rim of the cartridge? Look at the SVD, the cartridge is the same, but it works. And at a very traditional store.
      It is not in vain that I do not recommend reading memoirs. They write who is what.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 1 February 2016 14: 47
        +1
        Novikov.V.N. went from a rationing officer to the director of the Izhevsk arms factory and deputy commissar. These are his words, not mine, I just quoted.
        1. 2news
          2news 1 February 2016 16: 17
          +1
          Quote: Amurets
          Novikov.V.N. went from a normalizer to the director of the Izhevsk arms factory and deputy commissar.

          Then I can safely assume that Novikov wrote "what should be written." During the Soviet era, this was common.
          Quote: Amurets
          These are his words, not mine, I just quoted.

          I realized, just objectively showed that its version does not roll.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  • Astrey
    Astrey 1 February 2016 15: 35
    0
    Quote: 2news
    then gave way to more advanced models.


    Quote: 2news
    Apparently Mosin rifle arr. 1891 / 30gg. Nothing very perfect of those times on the cartridge of 7,62x54 mm R can not be remembered.


    In production - machine gun DP.
    In operation - automatic machine (original name) PPSh.

    Yes, the cartridge still remains a "common place" - during the Second World War, only SVT-38,40 weapon systems were "extremely perfect" for it and were brought to an industrial quantitative scale. And machine guns are already a separate song, and they are very sad.
    After all, the main focus was on aviation / tank building. They did it here - but at what cost and at what time ...
    1. 2news
      2news 1 February 2016 16: 43
      0
      Quote: Astrey
      In production - machine gun DP.

      Let's call a spade a spade, a heavy multiply-charged automatic rifle on the DP-27 bipod. Notice 27, this is from 1927. Product arr. 1936 has been replaced by a product mod. 1927 Apparently, that with the product arr. 1936 it was not so.
      Quote: Astrey
      In operation - automatic machine (original name) PPSh.

      Hm. How can PP replace a rifle? These are weapons of different classes. you do not begin to crush the tank on a motorcycle? Or become? But between PPSh and ABC approximately the same distance.
      Quote: Astrey
      only SVT-38,40 was brought to an industrial quantitative scale.

      Yeah. Quantitative. It’s a pity that they are not of high quality. Therefore, this product is already in 1945. removed from armament, and from production, even earlier.
      Quote: Astrey
      And machine guns are a separate song, and it’s very sad.

      That, yes. At the beginning of the Second World War, the Red Army was armed only with Maksimka with its near-zero combat stability.
      Quote: Astrey
      They did it here - but at what cost and at what time ..

      I won't say about Aviation. But in the tank building, I do not see "coped". Here, just point-blank.
    2. gross kaput
      gross kaput 1 February 2016 16: 45
      +2
      Quote: 2news
      Apparently Mosin rifle arr. 1891 / 30gg. Nothing very perfect of those times on the cartridge of 7,62x54 mm R can not be remembered.

      Quote: Astrey
      In production - machine gun DP.
      In operation - automatic machine (original name) PPSh.

      Maybe you should learn a little material? SVT / AVT were discontinued in January 1945, the last rifles were assembled in the spring of 45, the cartoon about "discontinuation of production", it is not clear why it was launched in Soviet times, but statistics say something else, in the most difficult for production workers 42 g (evacuation from Tula, deployment of a series of SVTs in Mednogorsk) produced 280 SVTs, in total, during the war, they produced 000 - no doubt much less than Mosinok for the same period, but one SVT in production time was equal to 1 mosinki and the fact that even in extremely tense 800 years they continued to be produced suggests that SVT was needed and in demand.
  • bbss
    bbss 1 February 2016 13: 58
    0
    Quote: Amurets
    Quote: almost demobilized

    Do not confuse with a bayonet from AK-47 with a ring closer to the blade and 2 horns at the end of the handle?

    It is possible! But in the ZRV in 1969-1971 there were no automatic machines. You understand that for such a period you can forget the details. But it looks similar.

    I confirm. Also served urgent in these years (70-72). But the bayonet-knives were not like that. The blade was like a bayonet from SKS. Most similar to the bayonet-knife from the AK-47 early series.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 1 February 2016 14: 51
      0
      Quote: bbss
      Most similar to the bayonet-knife from the AK-47 early series.

      Perhaps! I won’t argue and prove my point. It’s just similar. The dol also went sideways.
  • martin-159
    martin-159 1 February 2016 16: 21
    0
    Dales are made to facilitate and improve balance and not to increase rigidity.
  • RoTTor
    RoTTor 1 February 2016 16: 44
    0
    and in our school, with such bayonets, there were day-time and auxiliary rooms in the faculties
  • moskowit
    moskowit 2 February 2016 20: 05
    0
    Actually, as the design development of ABC and the Bayonet to it, a very beautiful and harmonious couple. Simonov is a true weapons artist. Then it was very clearly manifested when creating the SCS
    1. gross kaput
      gross kaput 2 February 2016 21: 46
      0
      Guess what it is? The bourgeois claim that this is ABC 36/42 and what is it really?
      1. aws4
        aws4 2 February 2016 23: 45
        +2
        I have not seen this .... do not languish what kind of vinar ???
      2. V. Salama
        V. Salama 4 February 2016 13: 39
        0
        Quote: gross kaput
        Guess what it is? The bourgeois claim that this is ABC 36/42 and what is it really?

        Just in case, I want to remind you that the SVT was also issued in the form of a carbine (shortened), however, as a keepsake, I won’t say that this is it - maybe I don’t see key details. But at first glance it is SVT.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  • gross kaput
    gross kaput 3 February 2016 00: 15
    0
    A few years ago, on the Hansa, the people broke their spears trying to solve the riddle, but did not come to a consensus, although the answer lies on the surface, look carefully at the details - the devil is in the details. Well, the hint for this unit is related to Simonov, Tokarev and someone else. smile
    1. veteran66
      veteran66 3 February 2016 18: 58
      0
      Quote: gross kaput
      look carefully at the details - the devil is in the details.

      Yes photo montage is from a photo of both rifles. At what plant in the USSR in the 40s did they abbreviate in English? AVS? !!
      1. gross kaput
        gross kaput 3 February 2016 20: 19
        0
        Quote: veteran66
        yes photo montage

        Close but no photo montage
        1. aws4
          aws4 4 February 2016 01: 14
          +2
          so tell us more about this rifle if you know
          1. gross kaput
            gross kaput 5 February 2016 21: 12
            0
            Quote: aws4
            so tell us more about this rifle if you know

            Duc the fact is that who did it and for what purpose it is not known (maybe just tuning ala SVT, maybe for filmmakers - SVT wasn’t, and so they blinded it) this is an ordinary SCS on which, instead of a native muzzle, they inserted a "gill" from SVT, made a box extension, welded on the stem of the shutter a ring ala-SVT and welded on a regular store a box in profile similar to an SVT store, but the absence of a removable bottom and traces of rough processing give out a welded piece of iron, in general, we tried to bring the appearance closer to SVT, the presence of "markings" in Latin make you think what you did "this" is not with us, but closer to Hollywood.
            Here is such a task for attentiveness - a few years ago it was very fun to watch how in the Hansa, people who are really well versed in the topic, writing articles and books on the topic of weapons, etc. argued and tried to tie "this" to the pre-war experimentalists of Simonov and Finnish alterations during the war - all that was necessary was to examine the photographs a little more closely. smile
        2. veteran66
          veteran66 5 February 2016 18: 41
          0
          Quote: gross kaput
          Close but no photo montage

          Well, then the remake is fake