If ak-47 were to be thrown into world war ii, no one would have been killed, not the germans: it's hard to get a st. G. 44 that just looked up and found the entire ak on the other side, two years ahead, and his mind just collapsed。
A lot of people talk about it, and they like to go up and down: can we rewrite the end of world war ii and let a country win back。
Let's not rush to the end。
You narrow your eyes down to an infantry squad, a hilltop, a corner, a different picture。
Imagine a very specific scene。
On the eastern front, 20 degrees below, a line of soviet infantry lies in the snow。
The equipment is the same as the three old ones: the mosinagan embolden rifle, seven rounds of silos, a bullet for a bolt, possibly with a dp light machine gun next to it, and a pile of cartridges。
On the other side, k98k was also emboldened, but the mg42 in the class was the father, the real father, and all around it。
Anyone who carries a scaffold and uses a machine gunman as a human shield is clearly and clearly organized。
With this configuration, how does class fire work
Simple: the machine gun is alive, ben is alive。
When mg42 rings, the head across the street can't lift up。
As soon as the machine gun was hit with a mute or the ammunition could not be carried, the german squad became half crippled。
The rifleman was unable to match the single firepower and had to shoot on a sporadic basis。
The same is true of the soviet forces, which, without automatic fire, have to build on their lives, build on their barrages, and squeeze up in a dense formation。
Sometimes you feel like you're using the idea of a cold weapon: it's not fire over you, it's how many people i can lose and how much i can afford to take off。
That's the worst part of ak。
It's not going to be better than k98, it's going to break the pattern of "a machine gun is a father" so that the "one or two firepoints in the class" will simply fail。
In your head, you've changed the image: it's also a soviet infantry squad, which used to be a dozen people, a dozen mosinagans, and as we move forward, we've all got one shot at each other, one shot at each other, one at each other, one at each other's feet, and one at a slow pace。
Now a dozen aks, 30 bending cartridges, one by one, 50 to 300 metres in the zone, have increased fire intensity several times。
This is not a change from a “civilian” to a “middler” and from a “cold-arming group” to a “all with a small machine gun”。
It is easy for many to ignore one detail: the distance of most of the infantry fighting in world war ii, in fact, is between a few dozen and a few hundred metres, not the 800-metre pair in a sniper movie。
Cities, woodlands and villages are all covert。
At this distance, the strength of the bolted rifle is not great, but the speed of the reaction and the strength of the fire continue to determine whether you can crush the opposite head。
Why is mg42 blown to death
A very important reason, good repression。
The speed of fire is high and the fire is full。
But its problems are there: too heavy, too heavy, too easy to be a “focus target”。
You can shoot anywhere you want。
And look at the ak thing: a single man, a gun, a few magazines, hiding behind the corner of a wall, window frame, tree, half of a body, popping a spot, changing places。
It's hard for you to cover it with fire。
The opponent is no longer a point of fire, but a small line of moving fire。
This is the real revolution at the class level。
Why does ak say, "stomp on the pain"
You take a few elements apart:
First, it uses 7. 62 x 39, which is an intermediate weapon。
The simplest understanding is that it is “sweeter” than conventional rifles, and much more “harder” than pistols。
Back-sitting can be controlled, with bullets in a broad area, really on the battlefield, and can be suppressed; but the range and casualties are far more comfortable than the size of the submachine gun。
Second, 30 magazines, semi-automatic, fully automatic。
When you need a shot, you use a rifle with a semi-automatic precision; you need to suppress, you have to push, you have to pull, you're out。
You can give a regular recruit a decent fire density quickly。
Thirdly, the structure is simple and durable。
Throwing one in the mud and one in the snow, and it can still ring, is too lethal for the logistics of world war ii。
Think of the eastern front. Think of the muddy battles of kursk. How many sophisticated weapons go there and become scrap metal
Ak's stuff, it works with bullets and someone pulls the trigger。
When you fold these points together, you can read the phrase: ak upgrades the regular infantry to a “low automatic fire point”。
At the tactical level, that's a very strong statement。
The fire structure of the previous class was machine gun plus rifle。
The machine gun was a fist, the rifle was a finger。
Now, everyone in the class is a small fist, and the machine gun is still there, but it is no longer a child, but rather a flower。
The awkwardness of the german “machine gun falls and ben dies” is considerably diluted。
Turn back to st. G. 44。
As many people know, it's called the “first assault rifle in the world”, and the germans do take a step in the direction: it's also a mid-power bullet, it's also a controlled automatic fire, and it's a concept that goes with the ak。
Where is it
Two words, too late。
Only in 1943 did it begin to appear on a scale, with german troops already being blown up on the battlefield and industries being beaten to the ground。
Stg44 is slow, logistics, training, ammunition supplies cannot keep pace and the process is “precious” and not much “ground gas”。
You have a small set of fine equipment, across the street is the whole system of hundreds of thousands and millions of people, and you can make local eyeballs, and it's over。
What if ak was born ten years early
And that turned out to be an interesting picture: the germans also turned stg44 into late black technology, and the soviet front has already had an ak system in its head。
The germans took the lead and were wiped out。
You could have said, "we're at the forefront of the age of weapons," and now it's like, "there's been a lot of this stuff produced from the opposite side."。
And ak design, at the industrial level, is easily imitated。
Pay back, grind it down, don't say that germany, the united states, the united kingdom, for two or three years, can build a similar thing。
At that time, it was not “who invented first” but “who could lay it faster and who could guarantee that the ammunition would remain intact”。
Looking in this direction, the result is clear: ak will significantly change the logic of infantry confrontation on the battlefield, but rise to the level of “who wins and who loses”, which is not so powerful。
The toughest things in the war like world war ii are clear to all: steel, fuel, transportation, emptying。
You're a light weapon, you don't have oil, tanks are iron coffins, planes are scrap aluminium; you don't have boats, you can't get through, and the front line is waiting to die。
Why does the united states laugh at the end of the day, isn't it the "manufacturing" game that's playing sick
At what level can ak be “changed”
There are a few points to think about。
First, the speed at which local battles advance。
For example, in urban alley warfare, forest push, heavy positions, with ak on the side, small infantry units have a distinctly strong capacity to suppress and rely on machine guns and artillery。
Anyone who comes to war with a head on the other side will have more life。
And ak's “automatic firepower for all” configuration can easily create a gap in this scenario。
Second, the casualty curve。
It is another matter that many of the scenes where bayonets, grenades, dozens of metres of bartering, have been crushed and the other side has been shot in the head and dared to attack。
The casualty rate will be redistributed between the two sides, with the ak side, at least in the context of infantry fighting, being much less stressed。
Thirdly, the speed of escalation of tactical ideas。
With ak in your hand, you're not going to be so obsessed with "intense formations, crowds," you're going to be more inclined to form teams, team operations, and you're going to focus more on cover shooting, fire formation。
In the long run, these things push the force's “tactical iq” upwards。
Is it possible that ak could fight the whole war
Not really。
You can think of an extreme example: can you delay the allies by sending ak to the 1945 germans
The answer is probably still too late。
The fuel was gone, the aircraft could not fly, the tanks were fixed fire points, the shells were becoming smaller and the logistical lines were blown apart。
The ak can't stop the waves of b-17 pulling your city from the sky and smashing factories and railways into ruins。
In turn, would it make germany worse on the eastern front if the soviet union were given ak five years ahead
It's possible。
The face-to-face of stalingrad would have been much more pressured by the heavy fire of ak。
Those infantry counterattacks later in kursk would be more “real”。
But it is difficult to end the war two years ahead of schedule。
The germans will also evolve, their tactics will be adjusted, their equipment will be upgraded and the battlefield will never be solo。
One particular detail is interesting: the soviet union actually knew before the war that “the bolted rifles were not enough” and that the svt-40 semi-automatic rifles were not too bad for their performance, but they were limited in number and many of the front-line troops were not used properly。
Maintenance is difficult and expensive, and training costs are not low。
In times of war, all the trouble will be magnified。
Finally, it will be through mosinagan who will win。
This is also an illustration of the fact that weapons drawings are rare, can be produced in constant quantities, can deliver ammunition and can be used by ordinary soldiers。
Ak was able to reach every corner of the world in the following decades because the soviet union coincided with the system of industrial and external assistance in the cold war。
It's another thing if you just shove it into the 1941 soviet type: steel is tight, machine beds are limited, transport is uninterrupted, and a lot of places can't even be repaired。
What's the rank of ak in world war ii
In short, it's called "class-side fire"。
It replaced an age when the machine gun was supposed to be “calculated” with an earlier era of “a little automatic firepower for everyone”。
Walking in the trenches, you meet not a few random automatic fire points, but a bunch of infantry with aks, who don't have to be the top of the gun, but if you push the trigger, you can lose your head。
Many prefer to turn ak into a “weapons of change” and others, in turn, downgrade it to “just a broken gun”。
Both views are a little extreme。
The most true value of ak has been made clear in the memory of some veterans: in the hands, in the hearts。
You know you're not the kind of "low-fire point" that shoots a bolt, and you know you're capable of holding your comrade across the street and letting him run alive to the next bunker。
This feeling can change the fate of many people on the battlefield。
As for the possibility of changing the war as a whole, it might be more interesting to ask: if you were to be thrown to the east in 1943, would you prefer to have more aks in the hands of your team, or would you expect a country to suddenly double its iron, fuel and transport vessels
What kind of change is more important to you in your mind。
