Free paper. AK-47

[5MadFarmers]

Farmers Notes AK47 (http://5madfarmers.com/tankpaper/FarmersNotesAK47.pdf)

Very short read.

[AZshooter]

Oddly written. Asks who designed the Kalishnikov, then jumps around to give a bunch of unrelated accounts of other guns and designers. I didn't study the writing, but I couldn't discern his point.

[IditarodJoe]

The "accounts of other guns and designers" are indeed relevant, as Joe uses them to build his hypothesis that Kalashnikov likely had little to do with the development of the AK-47. I have very limited knowledge in the area of firearms design, but the proposal certainly strikes me as being credible.

[5MadFarmers]

Oddly written. Asks who designed the Kalishnikov, then jumps around to give a bunch of unrelated accounts of other guns and designers. I didn't study the writing, but I couldn't discern his point.

Let's say that I time travel. I grab Browning, Pedersen, and Hugo Borchardt along with Georg Luger, and put them to work for five years.

Five years later a pistol is produced. Better than the M-1911, Remington Model 51, and the Luger.

"Who designed it?" I did. Sound believable?

"But the new pistol isn't a direct copy of the previous three mentioned!" That's why I grabbed designers. Designers typically have a track record of designing guns where they know what works and what doesn't. It's not as easy as it looks. Do you believe I'd produce one on my own the first time out of the gate?

"Of those three, I'd expect Browning to be the one. He's the best known!"

Let's say Browning was ill and spent most of his time cursing at me.

"Likely one of the other guys." Yup.

When the AK47 design is mentioned people invariably point to the fact that it isn't a direct copy of the MP44. "No kidding. They grabbed designers."
When the other side looks they generally point to Schmeisser. "They actually grabbed three teams with one of the other teams being those behind the MG42, no slouches, and Schmeisser is the least likely."

That.

The "low cost assault rifles" the Germans were after, post MP44, were more significant than people realize to this. "They pointed out what wouldn't work."

Kalashnikov. "Good record of gun design?" No. I'm sure people would still try to glom onto this and develop it. Counter?
"What were those German design teams doing? Sewing socks?"

Game over.

STG45. The Mauser design. The only team the Soviets didn't grab. "Went to France and then Spain. Responsible for the CETME." Then back to Germany. "Heckler & Koch."

Guess who joined them there?

"Kurt Horn."

Yup.

[TomSudz]

I've always thought that Kalashnikov had little to do with the weapon and feel that you've put forward a theory that, if not entirely correct, comes very close to who really designed the weapon and the reason it's put forward as a "home grown" Russian weapon invented by a "common man" who turns out to be a weapon design genius. I have often wondered how a poorly educated tanker with a head wound just decides one morning to design an automatic weapon for the infantry, but just never let my curiosity drive me to doing any research on the matter. I'm glad you did. Thanks for taking the time to not only look at the "designer" of the AK, but to look at those most likely to have actually been involved and how they came to be involved. I found your paper to be interesting and well written.

[Art]

The recurring idea that Kalisnikov couldn't have been the principle designer of the AK 47 essentially comes down to the same thinking that Shakespeare couldn't have written Shakespeare...social class. It is also due to a kind of Chauvinism that certain peoples are incapable of any serious innovation.

My father dropped out (or was kicked out) of school in the 10th grade about 1929. He was almost entirely self taught after that but became a licensed professional civil engineer in both Texas and Louisiana by 1956. Unfortunately obtaining a professional license through examination is dead as Julius Caesar. No more passing the PE or "reading for the law" without an appropriate degree due to lobbying by colleges. John Browning learned engineering in his father's gunsmithing shop. Thomas Edison was home schooled by his mother, not the best venue to become an engineer inventor in the 19th century.

Kalashnikov's family weren't peasants, at least not in the classic sense. They were small farmers whose land was confiscated and were deported during the purge of the Kulaks. His formal education was middle school which was considered the acceptable minimum in this country until the second quarter of the 20th century. He was, as was mentioned, assigned to the tank corps before WWII because of his mechanical aptitudes and while there made some modifications of tank parts including a tachometer which were not accepted in service but brought him to the attention of his superiors, including, according to some sources Georgi Zhukov. After being wounded in action he commandeered the machine shop at a local rail yard to design a submachine gun (no he didn't do it on his own.) This design was also rejected but the Soviets then decided that he had to much talent to be sent back to the front as cannon fodder and sent him to the Small Arms Institute which was an engineering school in 1942 so he was in fact a trained engineer. His next design was a competitor to Simonov's carbine (the SKS.) This design which incorporated the long stroke piston/rotating bolt operating system that was later employed in the AK was also rejected. Kalishnikov attributed the rejection of this design to Simoniov's political connections. His first accepted design, and this a good bit of time after he had become a full time firearms designer for the Bolshevik government, was the AK 47.

One of the distinctions of the Kalishnikov design was a departure from the European tradition of self loading shoulder weapons using tilting bolt systems (the STG 43 series of weapons used a tilting bolt and a gas system reminiscent of a Lewis gun.) Kalishnikov was very impressed by the long stroke piston/rotating bolt system of the U.S. M1 rifle and accepted the principle though with major modifications.

The fact is that geniuses to pop up with more regularity than one would think and those people will usually find the way to educate themselves to meet their needs.

So, it seems to me that Kalishnikov responsible for the design of the system of the AK 47, I think almost surely. His design was influenced by the work of predecessors including John Garand, but John Garand's design was also, almost surely influenced by the three French guys who designed the semi automatic Model 1917 rifles issued to the French army in substantial numbers in WWI and the subsequent improved Model 1918 rifle.

[5MadFarmers]

The recurring idea that Kalisnikov couldn't have been the principle designer of the AK 47 essentially comes down to the same thinking that Shakespeare couldn't have written Shakespeare...social class.

I'll address just that point. Just to show you didn't actually read the paper at all.

Of the five Germans listed in the paper I mention that one held a doctorate in engineering while I specifically noted that the main gun designer at the same firm had no degree listed; the lack of a degree was the first indication that he was in fact a gun designer and not a production engineer. I'll quote the paper directly:


Typically people in the trades were Dipl-Ing or, roughly, a Master’s degree. Kurt Horn isn’t listed as having a degree. “A production engineer of considerable note and a gun designer working together.” Seems clear. “A production engineer of considerable note in a firm specializing in metal stamping and a “hired gun” to handle the gun design aspects.” Seems clear.

Kind of hard to miss. Which one do I call out in the end?


If I had to point at one?

Kurt Horn.

The one without the degree.

Swing, miss. You didn't read it. You have a pre-canned response and used it. I specifically called out John Browning in a way that your response actually reinforces instead of counters.

Didn't read it. Swing and a miss.

No doubt now you'd read it and try again. Don't bother really. That you had a pre-canned response when you clearly didn't read it was clear. Thus you're just going to try to "apply that same assertion in another way."

====

I did digest what AZshooter posted. He has an interesting point. Thus I'll rewrite the paper to expand some stuff I didn't add and to provide for what he noted.

[Art]

Actually I did read it. My point regarding a generic prejudice, not whether other designers had degrees or not. The list of prominent designers who did not have degrees was not the point in itself, rather the general idea that Kalishnikov the man was not capable of designing the weapon. You allege that he had no significant design experience, if you believe the only evidence we have he did have design experience going back to 1940, though not originally in firearms. He in fact had designed at least two firearms prior to the AK 47 both of which were not accepted. Seems reasonable to me.

I don't think John Garand designed a firearm that went into production before the M1. I've always thought his career in some ways paralleled Kalashnikov's a talent someone in the government recognized and put to work who justified the appointment.

[5MadFarmers]

Actually I did read it. My point regarding a generic prejudice, not whether other designers had degrees or not. The list of prominent designers who did not have degrees was not the point in itself, rather the general idea that Kalishnikov the man was not capable of designing the weapon. You allege that he had no significant design experience, if you believe the only evidence we have he did have design experience going back to 1940, though not originally in firearms. He in fact had designed at least two firearms prior to the AK 47 both of which were not accepted. Seems reasonable to me.

I don't think John Garand designed a firearm that went into production before the M1. I've always thought his career in some ways paralleled Kalashnikov's a talent someone in the government recognized and put to work who justified the appointment.

You clearly didn't read it. That entire thing about "class" when every gun designer I mentioned had no degree but were using experience - the main point in fact.
You mentioned Browning when he was among the first I listed.
You claimed "It is also due to a kind of Chauvinism that certain peoples are incapable of any serious innovation." when I clearly listed Russian small arms designers. See more below.

You clearly didn't read it. Back pedal all you want but you clearly didn't read it.

The other glaring point in that paper was the presence of those German teams at the location where the gun was designed - something you didn't address at all. Why not? "You formed an opinion long ago and now don't even take the time to read anything to see if the opinion you formed holds up." Then again I mentioned that:


No doubt now you'd read it and try again. Don't bother really. That you had a pre-canned response when you clearly didn't read it was clear. Thus you're just going to try to "apply that same assertion in another way."


My point regarding a generic prejudice, not whether other designers had degrees or not.

Nobody who actually read that paper could form that opinion. It's clearly a point not present - something you failed to see by not reading the paper.

" “The MIG-15 had a copy of a British engine.” True. But the plane itself was actually designed by very good aircraft designers. So perhaps Kalashnikov wasn’t needed there.

Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov. Gun designer.
Vladimir Grigoryevich Fyodorov. Gun designer.
Georgy Semyonovich Shpagin. Gun designer.

The Russians had gun designers. That much is clear. Evolution of their guns and designs point that out very clearly."

Yup, "major prejudice" there. Actually there isn't. Which again points out your pre-canned response.

[Art]

I thought for a while that you might be John Kepler writing under a new handle but your syntax is different (and more tortured) than his. You are an admirable replacement though.

I did read your article. I just don't necessarily accept your reverse engineered conclusion. Your point that Kalishnikov had no significant design experience prior to the design of the AK weapon is wrong.

You are one of the sharper knives in the drawer, though often an insufferable one.

[5MadFarmers]

I thought for a while that you might be John Kepler writing under a new handle but your syntax is different (and more tortured) than his. You are an admirable replacement though.

I did read your article. I just don't necessarily accept your reverse engineered conclusion. Your point that Kalishnikov had no significant design experience prior to the design of the AK weapon is wrong.

You are one of the sharper knives in the drawer, though often an insufferable one.


Ignoring earlier developments:

Generation 1: MP44.
Generation 2: Großfuß Sturmgewehr, Gustloff-Werke Sturmgewehr, Mauser StG 45(M).
Generation 3: AK-47.


Nowhere did I claim it was a reversed engineered anything. People who like to point at Schmeisser, who I clearly eliminated, are the ones that treat the AK as an "updated MP44." Didn't do that. It isn't. It's generation 3.

I'll cover that and the information on the generation 2 guns in the rewrite as it's significant.

I didn't do my normal level of research but that doesn't mean I didn't do any.

[Andouille]

I for one am looking forward to the rewrite, but didn't fine the original especially hard to follow. Or or the premise especially hard to swallow.