How much would have WW2 have changed if the Americans somehow got hold of the blueprints of the AK-47 in 1939...

How much would have WW2 have changed if the Americans somehow got hold of the blueprints of the AK-47 in 1939? Could they even produce it? Stamped or milled?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/q_jGH6Np0IM
youtu.be/oKvX8_nbD-Y
forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=162988&sid=bda3242951e0fa3e74c83c6eed0be94e
northeastshooters.com/xen/threads/diy-shovel-ak-photo-tsunami-warning.179192/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Not as much as you might think, it's quite possible to produce an AK with 1939 tech if you have the blueprints, Paki's build them by hand with less

how far back in time could we go before manufacturing it becomes too expensive?

They're no more expensive to build than a Bren or BAR, the only reason assault rifles and intermediate rounds took so long to become standard is because of a belief range is more important

>small infantry arms
>having an impact large enough to completly change the course of a war

Back to call of duty you go.

He's also giving them to that side that's winning anyways.

Fuck off, retard, what kills people? Guns.
What can kill people better? Guns with good penetration.
You think the Germans with their K98s could compete with the AK-47 and its reliability? The Western Front would've went from a hard-fought painful battle to a slaughterfest.

The Western Front was a sideshow anyways.

What? It was one of the most defining moments of the fucking war. D-day landings, market garden, dragoon, battle of the bulge.... Eastern Front was what? Stalingrad and Kursk and that's it? Why are you on this board?

>guns with penetration
>in an era where no one used bulletproof vests
Also

Americans would never use an AK, they'd insist on using a full rifle cartridge like this piece of shit until they finally realized that's a stupid idea

>>in an era where no one used bulletproof vests
Yes, because helmets didn't exist, right, retard? Or how about taking cover. Fuck off.

great bait

...

And...
KILLING THE GUY BEHIND HIM!
KILLING THE GUY BEHIND HIM!
KILLING THE GUY BEHIND HIM!

american detected. the helmets were not bulletproof, they were used against shrapnels, go back to playing video games kid

t. finn

>Can't disprove my arguments
>B-bait!
High level of discourse

*inhale*

A helmet can stop a .45, a helmet can't stop an AK. Dumb mongoloid

That guy is a tranny now. Feel old yet?
youtu.be/q_jGH6Np0IM

>Artillery shrapnel= bullet

because all the soldiers are running around the battlefield wielding colt 1911-s dumbfuck

Yeah it can’t stop a full-size rifle cartridge which literally everyone is using anyways
Also no, it can’t even stop bullets from sidearms

You do realize the rifle rounds in WW2 are more powerful than the AK's right? That's sort what an intermediate round is, intermediate

Not retarded OP but almost every American soldier was issued a sidearm

Bullshit, an older variant can in no way be better than an older one

End your life

The 7.62x54R and .308 are still in service...

7.62x63 for .3006 vs 7.62 x 39 for the am round

~0

They would need to retrain their infrantry, revise their doctrine and if it would turn succesful, others would copy it.

This must be bait right?

Ummm, no sweetie.

Fine here
youtu.be/oKvX8_nbD-Y

>what kills people? Guns
Akshually, people kill people

Yep
Each and every American was packing muh .45 stoppin powah

Disregard #4087467

>arguments
You didn't make any

giving him free (You)'s only encourages him senpai

Forgotten Weapons video on the StG44 explains this pretty well. Bascially, troops on the attack can advance more quickly if they don't have to pause to reload.
To answer your first question the AK47 (over the M1) would allow for faster reloading and more rapid advances because it has a detachable magazine. On the macro-scale, you still need a supply train that can keep up and tanks etc. It wouldn't be hard to manufacture or anything.

...

>no u
Not an argument, sweetie.

And with what do they kill peopple? GUNS.

Modernised versions, had they used the same variant it would've been as effective as rubber.

>Fuck off, retard, what kills people? Guns.
It's actually artillery which did most of the killing during WWII.

Artillery destroyed forts, not people, are you retarded?

So you know nothing about firearms, ballistics or WW2, you're going all out today aren't you user?

>Can't disprove what I've said
>y-you know nothing
Riveting argument.

Not really at all, small arms make little difference in modern warfare.

They could have produced it, of course. If they can build 10,000 heavy bombers they can build an AK.

This
/thread

You're claiming that rifle rounds that existed in WW2 couldn't penetrate a helmet but an intermediate round developed for a rifle that started service 2 years later could, you're an absolute fuckwit and probably think the kurz round is more powerful than the standard mauser too

>kurz round is more powerful than the standard mauser too
But it is, you moron, why would they use the same variant?
> rifle rounds that existed in WW2 couldn't penetrate a helmet but an intermediate round developed for a rifle that started service 2 years later could
But that was the case, why do you think there are so many soldiers coming back with grazed helmets? It's cause the bullets were SHIT, retard.

What does kurz mean dipshit?

I don't speak German, but it was better, that's a fact.

Hmmmm

It's such a small factor compared to everything else that made the US win the war, such as overwhelming firepower in aircraft and artillery, motorized logistics, a very powerful navy, massive industrial output, endless natural resources, a large and skilled populace, etc.

The only thing this proves is a modern, smaller kurz round is significantly superior to the older shitty Mauser round. Thanks for proving my point

Really makes you think

Yes? You're still proving my point. The Kurz is superior to the shitty older 7.93. Are you mentally handicapped?

But if the kurz round was so good why'd they not chamber their machine guns for it? Oh that's right because it's underpowered for long range like all intermediate rounds are because they're fucking intermediate rounds you little cunt

>but if the kurz round was so good why'd they not chamber their machineguns for it?

>oh that's right because it's underpowered for long range like all intermediate rounds because they're fucking intermediate rounds you cunt

>intermediate rounds
so intermediate, modern rounds are superior to older long range rounds, fucking phenomenal, again, you prove my point, retard.

People also forget that SMGs were very common in WW2, and for most people they were sufficient for the often close-range combat of the day.

>so intermediate, modern rounds are superior to older long range rounds
Guess that's why they still chamber machine guns in 7.62, wonder why they'd do that when the 5.56 is such a powerful round?

But they use modern variants of both rounds, not the shitty inferior ones. You just keep proving my point yet you're blabbering that I'm wrong like a retard.

Because you're a fucking idiot and unironically think a kurz round is more powerful than a 7.93 when the entire reason a kurz round was developed is because an automatic rifle can't handle the fucking recoil of a 7.93, they tried with the FG42, you can't aim it properly. Kill yourself

>they tried with the FG42, you can't aim it properly.
false

ever hear of a battle rifle?

>Well have you ever heard of a rifle not designed to fire at full auto?

No they designed the Kurz round because the 7.93 was becoming inferior and couldn't do jack shit, recoil doesn't matter.

Couldn't do jack shit against what exactly? Did the Soviets develop steel fucking skin?

I'm on your side you spastic

General purpose machineguns are needed for their superior range and suppression power. But 7.62 NATO belts are heavy as fuck compared to 5.56mm and the M240 requires a whole 3 man team to function optimally. Besides the whole "full power rounds are superior" meme created by battleriflefags crumbles down instantly when you realise every modern army on Earth uses intermediate cartridge rifles for the infantry. It's not more powerful but it's lighter, cheaper and does the job at combat range.

>got hold of the blueprints of the AK-47 in 1939?

What do you think the "47" in AK-47 means?

>It's not more powerful
That's what this entire argument has been about user, the idiots contention that an AK round can penetrate a WW2 helmet but an SVT-40's can't

it couldn't do shit against helmets, retard.

Why were they aiming at the helmets and not the center of mass? Germans really were retarded

Exactly, that's what I want to know as well. No wonder they lost.

What the fuck is this argument even based on, cartridge power is just one of the many characteristics of a round.

Also even a 7.62mm Tokarev could punch through a WW2-era helmet lmao

No it couldn't, hence why soldiers began using sniper rounds to help with penetration.

No WWII helmet was capable of deflecting bullets
Fuck off Kiddo

THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE USED HELMETS YOU FUCKING MORON

Sure they would, if the round follows the curvature of the helmet you don't die, but if you take a direct hit in it you're probably fucked

Didn't artillery cause around 60% of casualties during the war?

The US already had the 2nd and 3rd best infantry rifles in WW2 with the M1 Garand & Carbine. It wouldn't have made a huge impact

What was the best?

Look here you dense motherfuckers

Artillery and grenades create these things called shrapnel which can fuck you up.

If you're sitting in a trench you're most likely to get hit by shrapnel in the head. Therefore helmets are a good idea. This goes back to WW1.

If you're fighting somewhere else shrapnel can puncture a vital organ, shred you up good or pierce your skull. In scenarios 1 and 3 you can kiss your ass goodbye. Scenario 3 however, is entirely nullified by steel helmets which are cheap and light compared to a full flak vest. Shrapnel usually can't pierce steel helmets.

The idea of helmets to stop bullets came up in THE 1970s WITH THE INVENTION OF KEVLAR. Prior to that deflecting bullets was a one in a thousand chance.

STG44

There's a thread on axishistory about it.
forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=162988&sid=bda3242951e0fa3e74c83c6eed0be94e
It depended on the sample size and environment; certain German divisions during the Polish campaign and the Red Army during the Winter War saw the majority of wounds caused by small arms fire, while the entire Red Army on the eastern front and Canadian and American forces in Europe had most of their wounds inflicted by shrapnel explosives in general, such as grenades and mortars including artillery.
In the World War II Databook by John Ellis, p. 257, it's also shown that total British forces throughout the war had 75% of their wounds inflicted by mortars, grenades, bombs, and shells, while only 10% were caused by bullets and AT mines.

me love alt history
and war of world two alt history is best!!!
what would happened if the america get billion bomb in 1939?!??

>Prior to that deflecting bullets was a one in a thousand chance.
You have just proven you have no clue what you're talking about.

>range is more important

I still believe that. I have a comfort level with rifles, the first time I picked one up I hit the bullseye at 200 yards. There's also an instinctual aversion to ammo wasting, spray and pray makes sense when there's a modern nation willing to pay out the ass for the wastage, but the average farmboy in 1939 is already competent with a rifle and are therefore more easily converted into a rifleman.

Good luck deflecting a 7.92mm at combat range with your standard issue steel helmet made out of smelted cutlery.

I have, believe it or not.

A guy made it from a $2 shovel.

northeastshooters.com/xen/threads/diy-shovel-ak-photo-tsunami-warning.179192/

...

You already got booted from /k/? thank god

Except yes though

Helmets are not designed to protect you against bullets but against shrapnel you stupid burger faggot.

That logic only applies when people aren't shooting back at you.

When you're taking fire the instinct is often to shoot back rapidly and relatively inaccurately while moving to cover, not stand there and aim. Studies done during World War Two and Korea bore this out, and were influential in the eventual shift to intermediate cartridge rifles as a standard.

This is correct.

...