Geier Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by Slapdragon: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RobVarak: ... the BAR was available for U.S. forces in Europe in the Great War, but that the decision was made to restrict their distribution as a means of limiting the liklihood of the Germans obtaining one and copying it. I am not sure about this, because my Arms of the Great War says that several hundred thousand made it over by 1919 and they were used in US units.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Russian automatic rifles Checked it up but couldn't find all the stuff I wanted. The first one was probably Federov Avtomat, which I believe is the one using the japanese round, the one Slap mentioned. Then was Simonov AVS-36, a semi auto rifle produced during 30's. Used full power 7,62 ammo. Unreliable in field conditions. AVS-36 was replaced by Tokarev SVT-38 and improved model SVT-40, numbers being the year of arrival. Used full power 7,62 ammo. About 2 million made by 45. There was a version capable of full auto fire. Simonov SKS-45 carbine. Used the same short 7,62 ammo as Kalashnikov later would. Designed in 44, went in production after war in 46. Interestingly MacNab's "Twentieth century small arms" says it's a single shot rifle, while Ian Hogg's "Handgun's & rifles" say's it's automatic. This is apparently the weapon russians use in ceremonial duties where AK-47 is inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscript Bagger Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by Kuma of Finland: Prolly only works with Finnish sand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olaf Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Elijah Meeks, You might want to to a search for a book on the subject as quite a few exist. If I have time I will dig up one of the ones I have and post the info. One of the interesting points was that most of the infantry officers during the initial development of the machinegun did not want it. A bolt action rifle and a bayonet was all that these brave killers needed. Because of this, artillery units received and deployed the initial machineguns. Not until the early stages of WWII did the infantry realize the killing power of the machinegun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted August 16, 2002 Author Share Posted August 16, 2002 So what are the primary reasons an army turns down new technology? I can understand industrial and economic reasons, a few million new rifles and the necessary ammo is a prohibative, but if you look at history it's a rule that new tech is almost uniformly ignored at first. Maxim was trying to sell his gun to everyone. The Greene Rifle disappeared with barely a murmer. Or how about a Walter cycle submarine or, as we're discussing here, the machinegun first as a support weapon and then as an integrated part of the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 I think there are a couple of points to keep in mind about adopting new tech. The first is that there is *a lot* of new tech that is really bad and that is also turned down. We just remember the stuff that went on to be successful. *Some* new tech is adopted right away - the Wright brothers flew their first plane in 1903; by WWI there were dogfights. And...*some* tech is adopted too early (German rocket planes, German jet bombers), and some tech shouldn't have been adopted - the V1 and V2 rockets were huge wastes of time and money based on their complete lack of effect on the war. For tech that *should have been* but was not adopted, the reason might also have been that the country was content with whatever they had, maybe because they won the last war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Interesting stuff out right now that *could* be the next big thing, but is not adopted with wild enthusiasm. The advanced whatever weapon system in US. The one with grenade launcher, coffeemaker and all the hoopla. Looks very silly sci-fi thing. Too big&heavy to be useful. G11 rifle from germany. Accurate 3 round bursts with 2000+ something ROF, caseless ammo. Self powered exosceletons giving soldiers superhuman strength. Coupled with armor creates invulnerable supermen? Landmates anyone? A few designs out there? Pneumatic running boots from russia, 50mph speed for footsoldiers. Couple with the one above? The 1 million rounds per minute weapon system from australia (or somewhere?). Laser guns... I can't see any of these as general use weapons in the next 10 years or so. (well maybe one or two) There's also a "political" side of things. You'd be risking your career by pushing forward any of these and in case the project is a failure, you'll be laughing stock all around. Promoting a trusted&proven design never got anyone fired... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrcar Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by Jarmo: The 1 million rounds per minute weapon system from australia (or somewhere?). Promoting a trusted&proven design never got anyone fired...Jarmo, true very true Also there is the warfighting concepts that have to be developed to support the technology. The "Metalstorm" system is Australian, and whilst the our Department of Defence has not taken it up (the Defence Science and Technology Organisation has helped in some development and evaluation) the USA is seriously looking at it. In part the decision to not use it is because in Australian warfighting concepts (which primarily revolve around defeating regional threats and peacekeeping operations) there is no place for such a weapon system. It is a tool without a purpose. The development of warfighting doctrine is the vital necessary step to take a technology into a military environment, without it its just a shiny toy. So the real question is how well does a country experiment with and develop its doctrine. And then how is the doctrine implemented. Cheers Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 19, 2002 Share Posted August 19, 2002 Didn't think of the doctrine thing at all.. From that point of view the MG thing looks different. If you're placing MG's in the same doctrine "slot" as infantry guns, I can see how they wouldn't get the support immediately. "Light but short ranged, poor effect against fortifications." Even had the same large carriage as infantry guns. Takes a whole new approach to start using them as squad weapons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khane Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 [ September 15, 2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Khane ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxbat Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 Originally posted by sturner: Not quite, they were developped to make use of the M43 intermediate calibre round, that was loosely based on the german "Kurz" round. The SKS has nothing in common with the MP-44 other than that it also used an intermediate calibre round, it is basically just Simonov's earlier self-loading rifle rechambered to 7.62x39. Worked like a charm apparently. And the AK may look superficially like the MP-44 but it has more in common with earlier russian automatic and semi-auto weapons, there was for example an attempt to redesign the SVT/AVT-40 for 7.62x39 that looked like a proto-kalashnikov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts