Languish.org

I saw a show on this recently and was curious as to what people thought here.  -_-

When the question is "in it's time" specifically, I go with the StG-44, without which there would be no AK-47.

Quote from: Strix on April 10, 2009, 02:21:58 PM
I saw a show on this recently and was curious as to what people thought here.  -_-

Discovery's "The Ultimate [weapon]" series? I like those. High :nerd: -factor on that show.

I'd guess AK-47, though, good enough to be in production for deacdes.

Aesthetically, I prefer the Austrian AUG, though.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army-technology.com%2Fcontractor_images%2Fmannlicher%2FSTEYR-AUG-A3.jpg&hash=f859b923796da9b39b8d93ae28d93b81e2c38331)

Quote from: Caliga on April 10, 2009, 02:28:37 PM
When the question is "in it's time" specifically, I go with the StG-44, without which there would be no AK-47.

Same, it was a weapon ahead of its time.

On an individual basis, I would have to rate the StG44 as the best.  It wasn't made in high enough numbers for them to make it a game-changer in the war, but the influence it had is very obvious (and I don't buy the BS about the AK47 not being derived from it in any way).

The entire idea of a selective-fire, more compact rifle with high capacity magazine, firing a shorter cartridge with about the same accuracy and effectiveness at practical ranges was more revolutionary than any of the other choices.

I'd kill to have one in my collection.  Sadly, most of the surplus ended up being sent over to Africa to arm communist movements/regimes in the 50s & 60s :(

Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2009, 02:35:29 PM
On an individual basis, I would have to rate the StG44 as the best.  It wasn't made in high enough numbers for them to make it a game-changer in the war, but the influence it had is very obvious (and I don't buy the BS about the AK47 not being derived from it in any way).

The entire idea of a selective-fire, more compact rifle with high capacity magazine, firing a shorter cartridge with about the same accuracy and effectiveness at practical ranges was more revolutionary than any of the other choices.

I'd kill to have one in my collection.  Sadly, most of the surplus ended up being sent over to Africa to arm communist movements/regimes in the 50s & 60s :(

I've never heard anyone insist the AK-47 isn't based on the StG-44.  On the contrary, I swear I've read Kalashnikov plainly admitted the StG-44 was the design inspiration.  Didn't Red Army soldiers used to fight over captured StG-44's because they were so superior to any rifles in the Soviet arsenal? :blink:

If you want an StG-44 badly enough, you might try searching YouTube for vids of guys firing them (I've seen folks who were clearly Americans, judging by accent, firing them) and email them to see where they got theirs.

For sheer influence and mass use, there'd be no contest - the AK-47 is present everywhere where there's an armed conflict. And boy soldiers in Africa are known as Kalash in some dialects. But that's not the question, so I'd go for either the Mauser K98 or the StG44. The latter for innovation and ingenuity, the former for reliability and up 1 km precision with a scope.

My old Spanish teacher's husband works for Colt and met Komrade Kalashnikov.  I asked him (the husband) the question about copying the STG44 and the answer he gave me was that the round and the concept were lifted but the internal design was original.

On topic: AK.  Changed history.

The Stg-44 was produced and use in both east- Germany and Yoguslavia after the war. I think some of the ex-Yoguslavian states still produce the ammo...

Quote from: Caliga on April 10, 2009, 02:38:54 PM

I've never heard anyone insist the AK-47 isn't based on the StG-44. 

Consider yourself lucky.  Go check out some gun collector forums if you want to experience some true fanboy weirdness.

I think a lot of Russians deny it as well, due to national pride.

Quote
On the contrary, I swear I've read Kalashnikov plainly admitted the StG-44 was the design inspiration. 

Haven't heard that, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear him contradict himself.  He's a colorful character.

QuoteDidn't Red Army soldiers used to fight over captured StG-44's because they were so superior to any rifles in the Soviet arsenal? :blink:

Yeah, but they lusted after practically every piece of captured German weaponry they could get their hands on.

Conversely, Krauts had an affinity for the SVT-40 rifle as well as the PPSh41.

QuoteIf you want an StG-44 badly enough, you might try searching YouTube for vids of guys firing them (I've seen folks who were clearly Americans, judging by accent, firing them) and email them to see where they got theirs.

I suppose I should have specified that I would kill to have one in my collection at a reasonable price :P

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fww2photomuseum.com%2Fsitebuilder%2Fimages%2FDDR_M54_Mp44-744x547.jpg&hash=4f4d1f80b2e70f56065d1aed1ea515e28a63c8b8)

East- German troops on parade in the 1950's, with StG-44 and M-54 helmet (copy of a late WW2 german Helmet, that didnt enter production)...

The AK-47 is unmatched in history for its ubiquity and durability.

Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2009, 02:47:53 PMI suppose I should have specified that I would kill to have one in my collection at a reasonable price :P

This gives me an idea. Muhahahaha.  :menace:

Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 10, 2009, 02:44:22 PM
The Stg-44 was produced and use in both east- Germany and Yoguslavia after the war. I think some of the ex-Yoguslavian states still produce the ammo...

I'd be surprised if they continued production after the war.  I know they were used fairly extensively.

I'm sure they're still making 7.92x57 in ex-Yugoslavia, but do you think they would still be making 7.92 x33?? I can't imagine enough StG44's being functional enough to warrant continued production.

Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2009, 02:58:18 PM
I'm sure they're still making 7.92x57 in ex-Yugoslavia, but do you think they would still be making 7.92 x33?? I can't imagine enough StG44's being functional enough to warrant continued production.

I believe they restarted production to supply mainly StG-44 owners in the States, they proberly cost an arm and a leg to import...

AK and it's kin.

http://www.ssd-weapon.com/engl_web/produkte_en/bd44_en/bd44_en.htm (http://www.ssd-weapon.com/engl_web/produkte_en/bd44_en/bd44_en.htm)

If anyone want a working replica... :P

M1 Garand.

For its time, it was the most useful battle rifle that was generally produced.

And its time happened to be the largest war in human history.

I'm gonna go with the StG44, although it kinda shares the spotlight with the AK. The M1 was an incredibly versatile weapon, but tactics totally changed once individual soldiers could use automatics easily and reliably.

Actually, I voted the StG, but the AK really should have taken it. First successful, widespread, modular gun platform. Even the Dragunov SVD sniper rifle was initially built from the AK receiver, IIRC. Look at the operational role and variants that the M16 has enjoyed in the US military, and then look at the platform established by the Kalashnikov.

Quote from: Caliga on April 10, 2009, 02:38:54 PM
I've never heard anyone insist the AK-47 isn't based on the StG-44.  On the contrary, I swear I've read Kalashnikov plainly admitted the StG-44 was the design inspiration.  Didn't Red Army soldiers used to fight over captured StG-44's because they were so superior to any rifles in the Soviet arsenal? :blink:

Actually, on the History Channel episode on AK-47 many years ago, Kalashnikov was visibly irritated at the notion that AK-47 was inspired by StG-44, claiming that AK is a completely different weapon, and that similarities are only cosmetic.

Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2009, 03:31:26 PM
Actually, on the History Channel episode on AK-47 many years ago, Kalashnikov was visibly irritated at the notion that AK-47 was inspired by StG-44, claiming that AK is a completely different weapon, and that similarities are only cosmetic.

I think it bears repeating that Kalashnikov is a bit wacky, and prone to playing up the drama of the moment.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2009, 03:34:30 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2009, 03:31:26 PM
Actually, on the History Channel episode on AK-47 many years ago, Kalashnikov was visibly irritated at the notion that AK-47 was inspired by StG-44, claiming that AK is a completely different weapon, and that similarities are only cosmetic.

I think it bears repeating that Kalashnikov is a bit wacky, and prone to playing up the drama of the moment.

I always thought he'd be fun as hell to kill a bottle or two of vodka with.  And since he has his own brand of vodka, he should be able to get it cheap.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2009, 03:30:44 PM
I'm gonna go with the StG44, although it kinda shares the spotlight with the AK. The M1 was an incredibly versatile weapon, but tactics totally changed once individual soldiers could use automatics easily and reliably.

Did they?

I don't think so, to be honest. Small unit tactics did not change in any great manner between WW2 and Korea, for example. The existence of machine guns and repeating rifles had already forced the change to small unit, dispersed fire and maneuver tactics. Assault rifles did not really change that at all.

If we are going to go with the weapon that forced the greatest change in infantry tactics, then it is going to be whichever weapon was the precursor to the Civil War era rifled musket. That is what truly forced the change in basic infantry tactics to the model that we use today, if you want to limit things to combat arms.

Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2009, 03:40:03 PM
Did they?

I don't think so, to be honest. Small unit tactics did not change in any great manner between WW2 and Korea, for example. The existence of machine guns and repeating rifles had already forced the change to small unit, dispersed fire and maneuver tactics. Assault rifles did not really change that at all.

If we are going to go with the weapon that forced the greatest change in infantry tactics, then it is going to be whichever weapon was the precursor to the Civil War era rifled musket. That is what truly forced the change in basic infantry tactics to the model that we use today, if you want to limit things to combat arms.

Squad defense and arrangement. the machine guns and rifles before were so bulky that you had to sort out the squad to cover the gunner. You've still got that to a lesser extent, but it's been relegated to armor and snipers, because SAWs and M-82s don't really lend themselves to "brandishing." :D

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2009, 03:34:30 PM
I think it bears repeating that Kalashnikov is a bit wacky, and prone to playing up the drama of the moment.

In what way is he wacky?

Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2009, 03:18:01 PM
M1 Garand.

For its time, it was the most useful battle rifle that was generally produced.

And its time happened to be the largest war in human history.

I would certainly argue that this was more signifciant a development than the StG 44, which after all came out "in its time" just long enough to prove insignificant.

Went with the AK-47, though.

I don't understand why the K98 is even in this poll.  Not even the Germans thought it a widely successful weapon, though they didn't replace it earlier mostly because their tactics shifted to the machine gun to compensate for their lack of a great combat rifle.

The PPSh-41 is probably the weapon to replace the K98 in this poll.  Though limited in its capabilities, it was the success of the PPSh-41 that convinced the Germans they needed a counter (which was the belatedly-appearing StG 44).

Had the StG 44 come out even a year earlier, it may have had "its time" to demonstrate its superior qualities.  Its tardiness, though, meant that it came out after "its time" IMO.

Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2009, 03:40:03 PM
If we are going to go with the weapon that forced the greatest change in infantry tactics, then it is going to be whichever weapon was the precursor to the Civil War era rifled musket. That is what truly forced the change in basic infantry tactics to the model that we use today, if you want to limit things to combat arms.

Rifled cannon should get a good share of the credit as well, though it rarely does.

Btw, I saw the Argentine StG 44 prototype in el Museo de Armas de la Nacion in Buenos Aires-- didn't even know it existed beforehand.  Actually turned out to be a pretty impressive museum in general.

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 03:44:10 PMI don't understand why the K98 is even in this poll.

Me neither.

QuoteThe PPSh-41 is probably the weapon to replace the K98 in this poll.

I'll see your PPSh, and raise you the .45 Thompson.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2009, 05:16:58 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 03:44:10 PMI don't understand why the K98 is even in this poll.

Me neither.

QuoteThe PPSh-41 is probably the weapon to replace the K98 in this poll.

I'll see your PPSh, and raise you the .45 Thompson.

This poll is about combat rifles, not submachine guns.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 05:20:28 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2009, 05:16:58 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 03:44:10 PMI don't understand why the K98 is even in this poll.

Me neither.

QuoteThe PPSh-41 is probably the weapon to replace the K98 in this poll.

I'll see your PPSh, and raise you the .45 Thompson.

This poll is about combat rifles, not submachine guns.

Go fuck yourself.  I voted for the M-14.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 05:20:28 PM
This poll is about combat rifles, not submachine guns.

If the StG 44 is being considered, the weapon it is designed to counter surely should be. One can be pedantic about rifling if one wants, but one would be mistaken to distinguish between weapons like that (as the MG-42 was rifled, and clearly beats out most - if not all - weapons in this poll as a difference-maker).

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2009, 05:16:58 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 03:44:10 PMI don't understand why the K98 is even in this poll.

Me neither.

QuoteThe PPSh-41 is probably the weapon to replace the K98 in this poll.

I'll see your PPSh, and raise you the .45 Thompson.

As someone who has fired a fully auto Tommy gun, I neg this.  Those things are cool, but shit for utility.  The Sten beats the Tommy, hands down.

On this poll, it's a toss-up between the Garand and the AK.  I guess I'll go with the AK.

When you consider the purpose for which it was designed AND compare it to it's contemporary Rivals. (remember the M-16 was for trained infantry, while the AK-47 was for militia) I'd have to go for the M1-Garand. Apart from the little klink when it was out and it couldn't be topped up, it was still ideal for it's purpose AND it was superior to it's rivals in fulfilling it's role at it's time.

No love for the Lee Enfield?

The British Empire's weapon of choice in BOTH world wars, and continues in service in some countries to this day (including Canada, where they are used by the Canadian Rangers in the North)?

Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2009, 07:10:27 PM
No love for the Lee Enfield?

The British Empire's weapon of choice in BOTH world wars, and continues in service in some countries to this day (including Canada, where they are used by the Canadian Rangers in the North)?

Old SMELE was probably the best rifle of WWI and the interwar period.  But the AK is on a flag.  It turned the favor in colonial wars toward the natives.

Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2009, 07:10:27 PM
No love for the Lee Enfield?

The British Empire's weapon of choice in BOTH world wars, and continues in service in some countries to this day (including Canada, where they are used by the Canadian Rangers in the North)?

A great rifle for WW1, but distinctly inferior for WW2.  If we consider WW1 to be "its time" it is definitely a contender.

The Enfield all the way. It helped the BEF slow the entire German army to a crawl.

Quote from: Tyr on April 10, 2009, 08:15:47 PM
The Enfield all the way. It helped the BEF slow the entire German army to a crawl.

The Mad Minute was pretty impressive.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 05:20:28 PM
This poll is about combat rifles, not submachine guns.

That takes out both the PPSh and the Thompson, then (this may be what you're saying, dunno).

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 07:35:45 PM
A great rifle for WW1, but distinctly inferior for WW2. 

It was on par with most other rifles of the war.  Its design is not my cup of tea, but in the right hands it can deliver nearly as many aimed shots downrange as an M1 Garand.

Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2009, 09:07:12 PM
It was on par with most other rifles of the war.  Its design is not my cup of tea, but in the right hands it can deliver nearly as many aimed shots downrange as an M1 Garand.

Nearly, and only in the right hands.  Damned by your own words.  :bowler:

Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2009, 03:44:48 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2009, 03:40:03 PM
If we are going to go with the weapon that forced the greatest change in infantry tactics, then it is going to be whichever weapon was the precursor to the Civil War era rifled musket. That is what truly forced the change in basic infantry tactics to the model that we use today, if you want to limit things to combat arms.

Rifled cannon should get a good share of the credit as well, though it rarely does.

Yeah, but then we are moving out of the realm of the battle rifle.

I am not a gun expert, but I can't see the AK not winning this.

Sure, it has not been used in a world-wide conflict yet, but if you consider its relative efficiency with its ease of use and maintenance, and compare those to its contemporary rivals, nothing gets even close.

And if it would have been used in a world war, it would have come off as even more superior, because in an all-out prolonged war, you just can't beat numbers, and while you need to actually train people to use stuff like the M16, you just form your Brezhnev Jugend give them AKs and they are good to go.

Voted M1.  Semi auto...led to the M14...

Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2009, 12:26:23 AM
I am not a gun expert, but I can't see the AK not winning this.

Sure, it has not been used in a world-wide conflict yet, but if you consider its relative efficiency with its ease of use and maintenance, and compare those to its contemporary rivals, nothing gets even close.

And if it would have been used in a world war, it would have come off as even more superior, because in an all-out prolonged war, you just can't beat numbers, and while you need to actually train people to use stuff like the M16, you just form your Brezhnev Jugend give them AKs and they are good to go.

Americans don't need to be trained to use firearms--we're born knowing how, because we're better than foreigners.  ;)

Quote from: Tyr on April 10, 2009, 08:15:47 PM
The Enfield all the way. It helped the BEF slow the entire German army to a crawl.

Surely you mean the entire 1st German Army under Von Kluck, on a limited part of the Western Front (some 25 miles of the front)...

Otherwise... :lmfao:

Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 11, 2009, 01:39:52 AM

Quote from: Tyr on April 10, 2009, 08:15:47 PM
The Enfield all the way. It helped the BEF slow the entire German army to a crawl.

Surely you mean the entire 1st German Army under Von Kluck, on a limited part of the Western Front (some 25 miles of the front)...

Otherwise... :lmfao:

Which in turn fucked up the entire thrust.

Quote from: Tyr on April 11, 2009, 03:40:57 AM

Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 11, 2009, 01:39:52 AM

Quote from: Tyr on April 10, 2009, 08:15:47 PM
The Enfield all the way. It helped the BEF slow the entire German army to a crawl.

Surely you mean the entire 1st German Army under Von Kluck, on a limited part of the Western Front (some 25 miles of the front)...

Otherwise... :lmfao:

Which in turn fucked up the entire thrust.

Not really, as both parties after this first encounter did their best to avoid each other. The British by pulling back as fast as they could, While the German Comander Von Kluck stedfast believing that the BEF had withdrawn into the fortess of Maubeuge, despite what his aerial recon told him, he believed it was only the British cavalery he was pursueing south. However the 7 regiments that the Germans had pull out of the frontline, as no longer battle worthy, would be missed at First Battle of the Marne...

What really fucked up the thrust was the Comander of the French 5th Army, Charles Lanrezac. He saw as one the few dangers coming and pulled back just in time to safe his Army being flanked and preserving the 5th Army's combat streng, and as such forced the part german thrust to turn early, resulting in the gab between the 1st and the 2nd German Armies that played such an important role in the First battle of the Marne...

Charles Lanrezac was also the guy who was so kind to tell the British, that the offensive into Beligium had been called of and that two full German Armies was heading their way, "and by the way, we are pulling back, have fun"...

Nicolas Cage taught us the AK47.