Kalashnikov statue changed because of German weapon - Sensationalist Headlines

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/Hul3oqa.png[/IMG] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41367394[/url] [editline]23rd September 2017[/editline] Oh shit am I late? I did look and couldn't see it anywhere.

How could they fuck this up

seems like the whole world is fucking around with their statues

they already blessed it though this is an act against god

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52710126]they already blessed it though this is an act against Putin[/QUOTE] ftfy I can perfectly see this is an outstanding example of "Google laziness" "Oh, Igor wants me search Kalashnikov guns? Хорошо, Google will help me" *Copy pastes Stg 44 diagram"

The AK's design was based off of the STG-44. It's where they got their distinctive shape and gas system.

Could've just left it like that and dropped in a drawing of the AK as well.

[QUOTE=GentlemanLexi;52710186]The AK's design was based off of the STG-44. It's where they got their distinctive shape and gas system.[/QUOTE] Sorta yes and then again not really. It's equally inspired by the M1 Garand for that matter, though less obviously so. Even then, 'stealing' designs like that is super common in weapons design, because if something works well for your enemies there's really no reason to not try to replicate it.

Lets make X! Aw shit we made Y

[QUOTE=GentlemanLexi;52710186]The AK's design was based off of the STG-44. It's where they got their distinctive shape and gas system.[/QUOTE] That's absolutely not true. Both the AK and StG gas systems are long-stroke but the way they interact with the bolt carrier to lock and unlock the weapon is completely different. The AK has much more in common with the Garand as far as its gas system is concerned. Once you get beyond the gas system the differences increase from there. The StG was stamped steel, original AKs were milled. StGs use a tilting-bolt mechanism, AKs use a rotating bolt (again, more like a Garand). The selection/safety lever for the AK comes right off of a Remington Model 8, and the fire control group of the AK is nothing like the StG's. Mechanically, the AK and StG are completely different- the AK certainly wasn't based on the StG in any meaningful way. The guns happen to look similar because they're built around the same basic concepts: a large quantity of intermediate-caliber ammunition gives you the distinctive curved magazine, the incorporation of submachine gun ergonomics produces the pistol grip separate from the stock, and the gas operation necessitates a separate gas tube, placed above the barrel for simplest integration with the bolt carrier group. A number of early assault rifle experiments, such as the Korovin Avtomat from 1933 (well predating Germany's program), follow the same basic layout.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52710380]That's absolutely not true. Both the AK and StG gas systems are long-stroke but the way they interact with the bolt carrier to lock and unlock the weapon is completely different. The AK has much more in common with the Garand as far as its gas system is concerned. Once you get beyond the gas system the differences increase from there. The StG was stamped steel, original AKs were milled. StGs use a tilting-bolt mechanism, AKs use a rotating bolt (again, more like a Garand). The selection/safety lever for the AK comes right off of a Remington Model 8, and the fire control group of the AK is nothing like the StG's. Mechanically, the AK and StG are completely different- the AK certainly wasn't based on the StG in any meaningful way. The guns happen to look similar because they're built around the same basic concepts: a large quantity of intermediate-caliber ammunition gives you the distinctive curved magazine, the incorporation of submachine gun ergonomics produces the pistol grip separate from the stock, and the gas operation necessitates a separate gas tube, placed above the barrel for simplest integration with the bolt carrier group. A number of early assault rifle experiments, such as the Korovin Avtomat from 1933 (well predating Germany's program), follow the same basic layout.[/QUOTE] For the record, they wanted the AK47 to be stamped right off the bat but just didn't have the tooling for it. They rectified that in the 50s woth the AKM.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;52710101]How could they fuck this up[/QUOTE] ...and yet that weapon was part of the inspiration for the AK47.

[QUOTE=TestECull;52710764]...and yet that weapon was part of the inspiration for the AK47.[/QUOTE] Read before you post

Wait, what? So is this photo taken after it was fixed? [t]http://media.beam.usnews.com/72/33ea33bca40267f3b6a08516494039/media:36608e4f23f44e6c815d332096c62a8cRussia_Kalashnikov_Monument_38245.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;52710791]Wait, what? So is this photo taken after it was fixed? [img]http://media.beam.usnews.com/72/33ea33bca40267f3b6a08516494039/media:36608e4f23f44e6c815d332096c62a8cRussia_Kalashnikov_Monument_38245.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] No, he's holding the appropriate rifle. Afaik, they had a diagram on the base that showed the mechanism of an StG 44, which is often erroneously thought to have been the inspiration for the AK-47

Oh, nevermind, I'm an idiot. What's wrong is the drawing on the [I]base[/I] of the statue.

[QUOTE=GentlemanLexi;52710186]The AK's design was based off of the STG-44. It's where they got their distinctive shape and gas system.[/QUOTE] AK is very different, but even if it's inspiration, Kalashnikov perfected it.

[QUOTE=GentlemanLexi;52710186]The AK's design was based off of the STG-44. It's where they got their distinctive shape and gas system.[/QUOTE] This is a really annoyingly persistent myth, anyone who's seen both guns apart knows that's just not true. They operate on totally different principles and have no similar parts. Only the layout is vaguely similar. A captured StG was demonstrated in the USSR and the Soviets said "we need an assault rifle" but did not reverse engineer it as part of the AK-47's design process. The StG-44's lineage can be directly traced through its descendents: StG-45M, CEAM M1950, CETME, and G3.

Also just to be clear it's the exploded-view diagram in the very back that looks like the German gun. Look at the curved wooden stock on the lower right. The gun on top of the diagram looks like an AKS-74U or whatever that gun actually is. (I only know guns from video games.)

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52711114]A captured StG was demonstrated in the USSR and the Soviets said "we need an assault rifle" but did not reverse engineer it as part of the AK-47's design process.[/QUOTE] And [i]even then[/i] the 7.62x41mm experimental cartridge that would be later refined into the 7.62x39mm was first developed in early 1942, months before the Soviet weapon design bureaus could have gotten their hands on any of the MKb guns. The AK and StG are just convergent evolution driven by the same design philosophies and the same prior examples from before the start of the war.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52711167]And [i]even then[/i] the 7.62x41mm experimental cartridge that would be later refined into the 7.62x39mm was first developed in early 1942, months before the Soviet weapon design bureaus could have gotten their hands on any of the MKb guns. The AK and StG are just convergent evolution driven by the same design philosophies and the same prior examples from before the start of the war.[/QUOTE] As far as I know, the different weapons were originally not designed for the same intention. The Germans had wanted the StG-44 to replace the standard kar98k for riflemen (and also the LMG in squads?), while the Soviets designed the AK-47 to replace their current SMG's and that's why the SKS exists cause they didn't adopt the modern idea of the assault-rifle being the standard backbone infantry weapon until later?

The AK wasn't the direct descendant of the Mkb42/Stg44 platform, but wasn't Hugo Schmeisser (one of the brains behind the German arms industry alongside his father since WW1) a major element in the development of the AK? IIRC the erroneous part was that Kalashnikov developed it on his own. He was merely assigned to a whole team, among whom Hugo was a key element. After the war, Hugo and 4 other German engineers were "contracted" to develop arms for the Soviet armed forces, and so they did. The soviets simply obviously preferred to use the "simple hero" or "worker's ingenuity" approach to their propaganda. Considering the Germans had just been the pinnacle of evil for the soviet people, it'd have been problematic to list top German engineers as some of the key people behind your new, fancy technology. Am I mistaken? Edit: Fun fact (?): soviet handlers commented on Schmeisser's dossier that he apparently did not appreciate criticism of his works at all.

:speechless: