[Nick]

sometimes soldiers went without the shower or bathing for weeks

Тяжело в учении – легко в бою.

Speaking of bathing: Михаил Зощенко - Четыре дня: читать рассказ, текст полностью онлайн - РуСтих

 

[Watson99]

Edited

 

[Tempest2]

You see, it's hard to define who is Russian and who is Ukrainian genetically, unless that person comes from a very remote village somewhere deep in the said territory

Max, I should know this or look it up elsewhere but since you are here:

Are a Russian speaker and a Ukrainian speaker mutually intelligibe? IOW, is there enough correspondence between the languages, with enough grammar and a vocabulary in common that a speaker of one can make out what a speaker of the other is saying?

 

[Nick]

Four days?

Four days of not washing your face (Да ты небось, Ваня, неделю рожу не полоскал?). Bathing probably took even longer.

 

[Nick]

Are a Russian speaker and a Ukrainian speaker mutually intelligibe?

Totally.

 

[Watson99]

Edited

 

[Nick]

Nope.

Why? I totally get this Ukrainian:

• Мыкола, ты чув як москали кажуть на наш борщ?
• Ни.
• Первое.
• Поубывав бы!!!

 

[Watson99]

Easy for you to say, you speak several languages, probably even a little bit of broken Bulgarian

 

[Nick]

broken Bulgarian

That would be the so called Macedonian, which I can also handle.

Some people take this thread way too seriously... Not you, Watson. Just sayin'...

 

[Watson99]

OK, I'll try to clean up my posts unrelated to the subject of this thread.

 

[reiver1]

So, who 'invented' the AK 47? Anyone change their minds.... I see two schools of thought.

Kalashnikov did so with a (self admitted) team incorporating already working systems into his rifle.

He did not do so, was not learned enough, it was someone or some others that did so (with German help or not)

 

[max popenker]

So, who 'invented' the AK 47? Anyone change their minds.... I see two schools of thought.

Kalashnikov did so with a (self admitted) team incorporating already working systems into his rifle.

He did not do so, was not learned enough, it was someone or some others that did so (with German help or not)

You are basically correct in your assessment of two schools of thought
In my opinion the first version is much better substantiated by the available evidence, including numerous recently declassified reports
The second version is usually based on the idea that a man with 7-grade school education, background in tank driving and commanding, and 4 years of extensive tutelage under best small arms experts Soviets had at the time was still not learned enough to make a shot at the assault rifle design.

 

[barnetmill]

Here is another question, how many really care who designed it. What is important is when and where it was designed and what it finally took to come up with the AKM version of it.

 

[max popenker]

Here is another question, how many really care who designed it. What is important is when and where it was designed and what it finally took to come up with the AKM version of it.

"When and where" is fairly well documented.
the AK-47 that won the final round of trials was designed in Kovrov, at the Design Bureau No.2 (same design bureau also had an in-house rifle in this trials, developed by Dementiev, which was the worst of all three)
It was later severely tweaked up in Izhevsk at the IZHMASH factory, and the AKM was result of several more competitive R&D programs conducted during early and mid-1950s
One day I hope to publish my book on the Russian Avtomat in English language; it will cover this subject and many more in details.

 

[barnetmill]

"When and where" is fairly well documented.
the AK-47 that won the final round of trials was designed in Kovrov, at the Design Bureau No.2 (same design bureau also had an in-house rifle in this trials, developed by Dementiev, which was the worst of all three)
It was later severely tweaked up in Izhevsk at the IZHMASH factory, and the AKM was result of several more competitive R&D programs conducted during early and mid-1950s
One day I hope to publish my book on the Russian Avtomat in English language; it will cover this subject and many more in details.

For historical understanding of events it is the when and the where that counts. The who is not quite so important.
What is interesting now days are the efforts that the Russians are making to update the AK to modern standards. I am not so sure how that is working out.
The AR-15 is based on a very different set of materials and manufacturing methods. I assume that an AK type of gun is still cheaper to make, but that is only a guess on my part.

 

[max popenker]

For historical understanding of events it is the when and the where that counts. The who is not quite so important.
What is interesting now days are the efforts that the Russians are making to update the AK to modern standards. I am not so sure how that is working out.
The AR-15 is based on a very different set of materials and manufacturing methods. I assume that an AK type of gun is still cheaper to make, but that is only a guess on my part.

Price of mass production greatly depends on the available machinery and processes.
The AK series, either AK-74M / AK-103 / AK-105, AK-200 or AK-12 series just work, and work satisfactory. Kalashnikov concern has an alternative design with more modern layout and materials, the AM-17M, but it's not nearly as mature as the Kalashnikov AK family, although I do like it a lot.

 

[reiver1]

Here is another question, how many really care who designed it. What is important is when and where it was designed and what it finally took to come up with the AKM version of it.

I did not start the OP but I do like to know the real history of a firearm... I shoot them but also collect books about the individual ones I enjoy and how they were developed. I care. It is part of the hobby and fun.

I also like these discussions as 'urban legend' can get out of control (Schmeisser dev. whatever)... and is then accepted as truth. This event, in numerous historical areas, often supplants the truth.

Some take this seriously and others don't care..... that's ok too.

 

[Nick]

I find it puzzling that Kalashnikov was against the 5.45 mm cartridge. I personally believe that AK-74 is much superior to AK-47/AKM precisely because of this cartridge. The 7.62 mm versions are almost uncontrollable in full auto. AK-74 is completely controllable.

 

[max popenker]

I find it puzzling that Kalashnikov was against the 5.45 mm cartridge. I personally believe that AK-74 is much superior to AK-47/AKM precisely because of this cartridge. The 7.62 mm versions are almost uncontrollable in full auto. AK-74 is completely controllable.

Unfortunately there's no firm explanation, but 5.45mm was (and still is) clearly superior to the 7.62mm as a general issue assault rifle cartridge
The only one role where it sucks is the subsonic suppressed variant

 

[barnetmill]

I find it puzzling that Kalashnikov was against the 5.45 mm cartridge. I personally believe that AK-74 is much superior to AK-47/AKM precisely because of this cartridge. The 7.62 mm versions are almost uncontrollable in full auto. AK-74 is completely controllable.

Kalashnikov was an expert in making a gun, but maybe not so much in ballistics.
I, as a civilian that can only own semiauto rifles it really does make so much difference relative to 5.45, 5.56, or 7.62x39 in an AK. Up to 200 yards they all work. There some differences, but none that are deal breakers. It more which is more available and maybe cheaper.

For a belt fed I would think that 7.62x39 would have some advantages on obstacles at a distance.