Why didn't the allies just copy the STG-44 after the war...

>Why didn't the allies just copy the STG-44 after the war?
Because then we wouldn't have gotten the FAL, and that's the worst timeline.

Attached: 411.jpg (4000x3000, 2.53M)

The fuddest post

Bullshit. He copied the long-stroke piston arrangement and general layout of the gun.

Attached: 411.jpg (997x637, 129K)

Guess how the G3 came to life.

This is a more uncommon pic. It seems its from
a video?

Attached: present_to_Hitler.jpg (630x711, 42K)

Attached: 411.jpg (800x725, 145K)

US Gun manufacturers lobbied to keep foreign arms manufacturers blocked
out of the US- included in the blocked was sport system D. The US
received a trickle of stg44's for 5,000$ a piece, but it quickly ended.
Canada however was able to get SSD products until the Canadian Gov
banned there importation.

Attached: 411.jpg (800x1036, 65K)

There was some of that, the much better Sturmgewehr 45(m) would become the Gewehr 3.
NATO kind of railroaded everyone into going for 7.62x51mm though, so that was that.
In East Germany, their rifle trials saw a rifle based on the Sturmgewehr 44, it had an improved receiver, a burst-sear, and was in 7.62x39mm. Needless to say, it didn't win against the AK.

You could kind of say that, but that would be a really stupid and simplified way of saying it, that glosses over a bunch of things.

Yes.

The Sturmgewehr was not the first to use a long-stroke piston.
Also, the general shape and layout of the STG44 and the AK are pretty strongly different.

Pic related is the finalized pre-production prototype for the AK, compared to the STG44/MP44.
There were some other Russian developments in assault rifles, and there exists one which is based strongly on the STG44, down to the hinging receiver and tilting bolt, but this was not by Kalashnikov.

Attached: sturmgewehr.png (720x686, 380K)

Attached: Vampir.png (559x425, 224K)

Attached: 12.png (797x786, 602K)

And if you are going to include origin pics you can't leave
this one out in the tribute they did to spit in the Germans
face.

Attached: 411.jpg (960x932, 116K)

Kalashnikov did mention the M1 Garand, I think he also thought about the 1918A2 BAR.

And though he never mentioned it by name, some way or the other, the Remington Model 8 influenced him (possibly indirectly), as it has an extremely similar setup with the double-hooked sear, and the safety lever acting as a dust cover for the slot of the charging handle.
If you compare an AKM and a Model 8 side by side, and then field strip them, these two features will stand out to you.

Attached: Remington-Model-81_001.jpg (600x176, 13K)

Because it wasn't actually that good a rifle and it's only loved by wehraboos and people that think assault rifle=instant victory while ignoring the situation and logistics it found itself in. Don't get me wrong, it's good for a last ditch effort. But it's just that. Why would you purposely use an inferior design if you could develop better?

Right, but the AK46 (does that K actually stand for Kalashnikov, by the way?), isn't the final AK47.

The AK46 is extremely similar to the Sturmgewehr, but the AK47/AKM takes some radical departures from both of them.

First kalashnikov prototypes were pretty much straight copies of stg.

>Why didn't the allies just copy the STG-44 after the war?
Because they didn't want a kraut weapon.

My guess: the US learned a lot from the STG but still wanted something better. It weighs more or less the same as an M1 Garand, but is less accurate, has a shorter barrel, and fires a smaller round. The benefit is that with the tooling all set up it's probably quicker and cheaper to produce than the M1 Garand was.

Still, the US doctrine at the time, and for some time after, was that everyone should be a marksman and this didn't jive with that. Think about where the US did end up going: the M14 first. That was just an M1 Garand with a slightly shorter, but ballistically similar type of ammo but with a detachable box magazine instead. No real weight difference, but now they have a weapon that was a derivative of the one that served them so well in the war.

When they got tired of that quickly they went to a very lightweight weapon that fired a much smaller caliber but was still very accurate in and of itself and had good barrel length. The M16 was space age for it's time after all: it didn't used stamped steel and wood, but rather forged aluminum and fiber glass.

Attached: The604_zpsxgt5cqce-1.jpg (1024x618, 134K)

Because the US leadership were absolute fudds. They literally caused the deaths of thousands of young men by sabotaging army trials of the FAL, as well as intentionally fucking up the M16. All because they wanted "muh grandads rifle!". The retards of the American Army would rather have dead soldiers than a good rifle.

>That was just an M1 Garand with a slightly shorter, but ballistically similar type of ammo but with a detachable box magazine instead. No real weight difference, but now they have a weapon that was a derivative of the one that served them so well in the war.

I think a lot of what made the M1 so goddamn good in WW2 was that it was a battle rifle when really nobody else had one; it was self-loading, it had a higher than average capacity, and more importantly, the en-bloc system allowed the rifle to be reloaded at the speed of lightning, faster than stripper clips, and even faster than swapping out box magazines, with some practice.

Now, if you compare the M1 to like the FAL or G3, they may not reload *quite* as fast, but they have much higher capacity, and an inline stock is just better for rapid fire (an important concern).
You could adapt the M1 to use comparable capacity magazines, but you're still effectively using the M1. While the Garand was by all standards excellent in WW2, by the time the Cold War really got going, "the Garand, but a little better" is actually not good enough to compare, neither to the FAL or G3, and especially not to the AKM.
Hell, one of the big sellingpoints of the M14 was "We can reuse M1 tooling, bro!", and that would never become true.

>I think a lot of what made the M1 so goddamn good in WW2
Hell yeah. Everyone else was primarily stuck on bolt-actions when we issued Garands en masse. All things considered, it was far and away the most effective rifle of the war (given the large number issued and it's singular effectiveness overall compared to everything else issued then) and that was largely due to the fact it was semi-auto, lesser to the extent of it's fast reloading, but still. After all, the SMLE was often considered the best overall rifle of it's class, in large part due to the fact that it could be operated very quickly and it was the doctrine of the British army to do so (e.g. the Mad Minute).

The M14 did make it through in part because of what you said with tooling and parts. There's still quite a few parts commonality it shares with the Garand. It's the Garand, only now with less Garand thumb. It was obvious it didn't hold a candle to the G3 or the FAL given how those were far more prevalent and were new designs.

It's interesting to me though how the US, despite a misstep with the M14, defined the standard of small arms with the M16 (also despite the teething problems). While everyone went with x51 we went with 5.56, yet within the next 40 years give or take NATO by and large all ended up switching to 5.56. Even Russia learned from it and developed the 5.45 for the AK-74. Going beyond the countries developing their own 5.56 platforms (AUG, L85, FAMAS, FNC, G36, etc.) many have started either going towards the AR platform or just a small variation of it from DI to piston.

I'm just yammering on at this point for no reason other than my bias for the M1 Garand and the AR-15.

>That was just an M1 Garand with a slightly shorter, but ballistically similar type of ammo but with a detachable box magazine instead.
Not at all. The M14 was a developmental nightmare that couldn't share tooling with the Garand even though that was the whole reason for adopting it, and despite the fact that the US already had select-fire box magazine Garand prototypes 15 years earlier. Not to mention the US forcing NATO to adopt 7.62x51mm and killing the much better .280 British based entirely on fuddlore and an on-record unwillingness to adopt anything that wasn't 'Murican, only to almost immediately drop it in favor of 5.56mm and leave everyone else holding the bag.

The fucking Italians made a better box fed Garand and it took years less than the M14 took.

Because people were still skeptical of the assault rifle concept at the time. Everyone’s ideal rifle for the era (excluding the soviets) was a semi auto full power rifle with detachable box mag because of a doctrinal hard on for marksmanship at range.

Fuck me, that picatinny version looks so much more acceptable than the vaporware we're supposed to get.

Kalashnikov and the committee that helped design the rifle took a LOT from other guns. Remington Model 8 and the M1 Carbine with a dash of other guns. The Garand, not so much but the M1 Carbine and the AK47 have a lot in common, namely the bolt and charging handle.

>While everyone went with x51 we went with 5.56
Everyone went with 7.62 because the US forced them to, not because they were behind the curve. NATO would likely have gone with .280 otherwise.

>While everyone went with x51 we went with 5.56

Attached: 1529374354478.gif (436x359, 3.14M)

>While everyone went with x51 we went with 5.56

Attached: 1527965660445.jpg (337x367, 95K)

Isn't the AK47 the type 1? AKM would be type 2, no?

superior weapon coming trough

Attached: 1465.jpg (1500x514, 62K)

That part was literally taken off because it was not supposed to be part of the monument. Artist fault.

nice M60

All true, except
>.280
Wouldn't have made a worthwhile difference. It was intended for two different loads, rifle and machinegun, meaning you might as well just have two different cartridges altogether.

No, retard.

As far as I'm aware, that's not accurate. There were two loads, one intended for both the EM-2/FN FAL and various machine guns, and the other with a heavier bullet in an attempt to appease the US. The standard round was suitable for both purposes. I think maybe you're thinking of 5.8x42mm Chinese?

because they thought they could do better, and they did.

US intransigence and obstructionism prevented the adoption of the best available option (EM-2 in .280) and slowed the introduction of the FAL but both were better than the STG44

>and that's the worst timeline
but everyone would have STG-44's.

>but everyone would have STG-44's.
Worst. Timeline.

user, it's a hunk of shit.

There's also the fact that many of the BD weapons are open bolt.

The problem with .280 is literally the same as 7.62x39mm, intermediate rifle rounds are more powerful SMG's than rifles, small caliber high velocity was the way to go, project SALVO got that right.

.280 is just 7.62x51mmLite, it's not a perfect caliber.

>Why didn't the allies just copy the STG-44 after the war?
They did.

Attached: 1471634429147.jpg (720x486, 31K)

Read the thread.

Attached: 1528851753784.jpg (736x414, 34K)

>Because they didn't want a kraut weapon.
Then why did they use their shit?

But that's actually exactly what happened

Not exactly; the Garand was supposed to be in an intermediate cartridge. It was more like, "We still have a shitload of .30-06 in surplus, so let's use that"

>.276 Pedersen
>intermediate
By a charitable definition.

But yes, .30-06 was chosen for budgetary reasons, the US Army didn't have a lot of funding at that time, and while they could go for a new rifle, switching calibers was out of the question, as they would then have to start a new ammunition production (when they already had quite a lot of .30-06), then look at replacing machineguns and sniper's rifles for the then very valued ammo commonality.
Like, .276 Pedersen was a really good looking cartridge to most people at the time, and many would have loved to have gone for it, but it wasn't in the budget.

That's prewar. is referring to after the war, when the US pushed through a brand new .30 caliber cartridge for no reason other than "muh thirty cal."

America was more worried about nukes and rockets. M1 and M2 carbines filled the same role. By the time they realized there was a need for an assault rifle, technology had advanced significantly, and stamping sheet metal was not the way to go

AKM is technically type 4.

And that's why the AK breaks down into an upper and lower receiver just like an AR-15.