Mr. Kalashnikov's passing has really hit the
news, that's fore sure. In seeing the various articles about him, I've now hit two that
are sort of the "merchant of death" variety. Indeed, one called him
that.
In thinking on this, I'm struck, perhaps in a contrarian fashion, by the thought that I don't know if he really had any impact on history at all. Probably some, to be sure, but all in all, I think he probably ranks with "Carbine" Williams rather than with John Garand or Peter Paul Mauser.
Indeed, I think that the AK47 is probably really spread around the globe more for the USSR being the country that made it, rather than due to its attributes, which isn't to say it didn't have any.
But let's think about it. What did this design do that was new or novel? Nothing at all.
It didn't introduce a new concept. The short round, full caliber assault rifle was a German invention and was fully proven as to its merits and demerits by 1945.
It didn't introduce a new cartridge. It utilized the 7.62x39, a cartridge the Soviets actually came up with during World War Two, and then made weapons for in a backwards fashion, first coming up with the SKS and then the AK.
Its design profile isn't unique. In terms of its external features, it doesn't have a single one that's novel. It strongly resembles German WWII assault rifles, which did pioneer a new design profile. The AK merely adopted them.
Its real virtue is that it's extremely reliable. It's also very inaccurate. But by the end of World War Two the Soviets had a lot of experience with easy to make, easy to use, inaccurate automatic weapons. Adapting proven SMG technology to an assault rifle would have been easy, and any single weapon adopted by the Soviets in 1947 would have featured the same things.
Indeed, looked at that way, it's plain that the Soviets, by not copying the Stg44, didn't achieve a better design. It's worse. It's just easy to make and really reliable. But anything they would have adopted would have been.
Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to suggest that the AK doesn't deserve a spot in notable firearms' history. It most certainly does. And I don't even mean to suggest we were always better armed. I think AKs were better suited for combat in Indochina than either the M14 or the M16. But what I do think is that it just isn't what it's claimed to be. It was inevitable.
For that reason, I also don't think that Mr. Kalashnikov deserve the merchant of death moniker. The Soviets would have spread some assault rifle around the globe in floods no matter what. Mikhail Kalashnikov became a household name during his lifetime. He never apologized for coming up with the arm that armed every Communist guerrilla in his lifetime. Living in the USSR, he was probably realistic about things. He was born in 1919 and wanted to design farm machinery. He entered the Soviet army in 1938, and was wounded during World War Two. It was while convalescing that he came up with his design. He stated that in an ideal world, the farm machinery goal would have been his preference.
In thinking on this, I'm struck, perhaps in a contrarian fashion, by the thought that I don't know if he really had any impact on history at all. Probably some, to be sure, but all in all, I think he probably ranks with "Carbine" Williams rather than with John Garand or Peter Paul Mauser.
Indeed, I think that the AK47 is probably really spread around the globe more for the USSR being the country that made it, rather than due to its attributes, which isn't to say it didn't have any.
But let's think about it. What did this design do that was new or novel? Nothing at all.
It didn't introduce a new concept. The short round, full caliber assault rifle was a German invention and was fully proven as to its merits and demerits by 1945.
It didn't introduce a new cartridge. It utilized the 7.62x39, a cartridge the Soviets actually came up with during World War Two, and then made weapons for in a backwards fashion, first coming up with the SKS and then the AK.
Its design profile isn't unique. In terms of its external features, it doesn't have a single one that's novel. It strongly resembles German WWII assault rifles, which did pioneer a new design profile. The AK merely adopted them.
Its real virtue is that it's extremely reliable. It's also very inaccurate. But by the end of World War Two the Soviets had a lot of experience with easy to make, easy to use, inaccurate automatic weapons. Adapting proven SMG technology to an assault rifle would have been easy, and any single weapon adopted by the Soviets in 1947 would have featured the same things.
Indeed, looked at that way, it's plain that the Soviets, by not copying the Stg44, didn't achieve a better design. It's worse. It's just easy to make and really reliable. But anything they would have adopted would have been.
Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to suggest that the AK doesn't deserve a spot in notable firearms' history. It most certainly does. And I don't even mean to suggest we were always better armed. I think AKs were better suited for combat in Indochina than either the M14 or the M16. But what I do think is that it just isn't what it's claimed to be. It was inevitable.
For that reason, I also don't think that Mr. Kalashnikov deserve the merchant of death moniker. The Soviets would have spread some assault rifle around the globe in floods no matter what. Mikhail Kalashnikov became a household name during his lifetime. He never apologized for coming up with the arm that armed every Communist guerrilla in his lifetime. Living in the USSR, he was probably realistic about things. He was born in 1919 and wanted to design farm machinery. He entered the Soviet army in 1938, and was wounded during World War Two. It was while convalescing that he came up with his design. He stated that in an ideal world, the farm machinery goal would have been his preference.
There was a time when I trained as an artillery men to take on men armed with his design. I don't begrudge him anything, and I hope that his soul has found the peace that making farm machinery might have given him a bit of on earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment