Curiosity: What do people think an "Assault Rifle" is?

Mess Room
1

The Sturmgewehr 44(“Storm Rifle”) (StG44) was THE rifle that created the “Assault Rifle” class.

Early engagements were fought with rifles designed around parameters that did not match up with the realities of World War 2.

If the Allies wanted to overtake a fixed German position, the Garands(.30-06) and BAR (.30-06) were most effective at long ranges that the rifle was designed for, the M3 and Thompson fired .45 ACP which was most effective in CQB, you had to gather the appropriate equipment operators and pray to God that “not too many” of your riflemen were dropped or you would lose effective suppressing fire and that your SMG assaulters could actually take the position because they were the only ones with the right equipment to effectively do so. Add in the fact that your smgs and battle rifles were chambered for different calibers, and you had significant supply logistic problems.

The Germans had the same problems and they only got worse as the Western Front was opened up and supplies had to be selectively shuttled around 3 different fronts (French, Italian, Eastern) The Kar98k, Gewehr 43 and MG42 fired 7.92 Mauser, the Mkb42 fired 7.92 Kurtz (not interchangeable with Mauser), the MP40 fired 9mm Parabellum.

As the war went on and war analysis was performed, it came to be understood that the accuracy and range of the Kar98k was wasted on any soldier but a trained sniper and its low fire rate was woefully inadequate for standard infantry engagements at the ranges they actually occurred. The StG-44 was implemented to be able to perform the duties of a battle rifle(range;fire base), a carbine(maneuverability), and a submachine gun(assault). It had selective fire so that the operator could switch between semi-automatic for ammo preservation and automatic for close quarter combat spraying. It fired the intermediate, 7.92 Kurtz cartridge to maintain the range of a Battle Rifle needed for WW2 engagements, the recoil characteristics of an SMG for accuracy during full automatic fire, and the ergonomics of a carbine. With the StG 44, each squad operator can perform in each required assault role (suppression, fire base, maneuvering fire, storm)

We call the class the “Assault Rifle” specifically because of the StG-44 and the functional properties that were designed into it. All modern rifles in the class are its direct descendants and any rifle which is not directly descended from it with its desired goals designed into it are not Assault Rifles.

4 Likes
2

Assault rifle = automatic weapon shooting an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than pistol), controllable in short bursts.

2 Likes
3

That’s half (maybe three quarters) right and it’s only “wrong” by omission of its other properties.

An assault rifle also has to maintain accuracy and punch out past carbine range or it can’t replace the battle rifle in squad infantry tactics.

Assault rifle = “battle rifle + carbine + submachine gun” Any squad member with an “assault rifle” can perform in all squad infantry roles other than mass suppression (still need an LMG for that)

Assault Rifle =
+better punch at range than a carbine
+more stopping power in cqb than pistol rounds
+ergonomics and maneuverability of a carbine

1 Like
4

the major incentive for the assault rifle is that
rifles great at long range not so much at cqc but would also be able to kill out to 800meters and this range was wasted
smgs great at cqc not so great at long range
so many rifle equipped troops suffered in city fighting and so they wanted a weapon that would combine the best of both but it didnt need to powerfull rifle range of 800meters

5

Select fire, intermediate cartridge rifle with detachable magazines. That’s it.

7 Likes
6

Assault rifle classification is a select fire weapon that fires intermated cartridges as opposed to the full length rifle rounds of battle rifles and bolt actions. also the name of the classification was because hitler wanted to scare the allies that he had a wunderwaffe that will send them into the sea

2 Likes
7

That is a function you want from it, not part of a definition.

1 Like
8

It’s a primary design tenet of an Assault Rifle.

The “intermediate cartridge”, “removable magazine” and “full auto capability” are not design tenets; they are specific implementation decisions which were made to meet the goals. The rifle meeting the goals is what makes it an assault rifle.

9

Like I said - that is something it needs to do, but it is not part of a definition.

A crap assault rifle that fails to do that for some reason would still be an assault rifle as long as it met the definition.

1 Like
11

But a crap assault rifle would be one designed to
+be effective in all squad infantry roles other than mass suppression

…it just would have problems doing it; like how the M16 was originally full auto, the barrels weren’t chromed, and the use of ball powder in the 5.56x45 cartridges when DuPont couldn’t manufacture enough IMR4475 caused it to foul and jam.

What the rifle is designed to do is its definition.

12

Yes, but a bit more. Usually it is understood that an assault rifle also requires some sort of fire selection, as well as a detachable box
magazine.

“Lineage from the StG” like op is saying has nothing to do with it really. It just popularized the concept, but the US and Russia already had similar projects of their own beforehand.

The StG was originally conceptualized simply as an automatic carbine chambering an intermediate round.

13

This is an inaccurate statement. The DoD wouldn’t entertain the idea of abandoning the battle rifle until after the Korean War.

Russia’s AS-44 was a prototype that was never put into production. It never saw one minute of combat. It was abandoned and replaced with the AK-47 after the Allies raided and pillaged German engineering information and the Soviets completely redesigned the AS-44’s internals (Kalashnikov kept the AS-44’s major external physical characteristics within his design)

The StG 44 is the rifle that created the class.
It was created to perform in all squad infantry roles aside from mass suppression, which still required an LMG. This has been well understood as the definition of an assault rifle for every moment after WW2.

14

No it is not. This statement of yours is actually highly inaccurate. The US had already developed intermediate cartridges well before the Germans, and there were several prototypes, tests and trials of automatic “light rifles” (a concept that we would know today as an assault rifle) tested though-out the 1940s and 1950s, however most were not accepted and the military opted for a more powerful full-sized cartridge (this was mostly an economic/logistical decision).

The M2 carbine came close, and is generally considered an early American Assault Rifle, but generally fell short of range requirements for a standard military rifle. In it’s battlefield use it would more closely resemble the modern PDW.

1 Like
15

Bingo

16

The intermediate cartridge actually has little to do with it other than as a retronymic physical distinction between the assault rifles and the battle rifles. “It just so happens” that all assault rifles accomplish their goals with intermediate cartridges because when the goals for the rifle are different than reaching out and touching someone at 1500 yards, the physics change and an intermediate cartridge becomes easier to design around.

But you define something by what it does, not how it does it.

The only reason we describe an Assault Rifle as having “an intermediate cartridge with select fire, a detachable magazine, and a carbine firing platform” is because that is exactly HOW the StG-44 proved that one rifle could serve in all squad infantry roles and everyone else has copied the same implementation for meeting the same goals ever since. These are all known as “assault rifles.”

The M1 Carbine was still a carbine.

No, a light rifle is a carbine. Carbines are different than assault rifles although assault rifles are usually considered carbines.

It was mostly inertia and the affinity for battle rifles (“something with punch”) held by the dinosaurs who made such decisions inside the DoD than it was about economics or logistics. The M1 was replaced with the M14, after all, as GI before the AR15 platform prototype was ever designed.

The M2 never came close. It is considered a carbine. It lacked the stopping power required for base fire but the M2 was just an M1 Carbine with a larger magazine.

…pdw?? “Personal defense weapon?” You mean like a P90? Ever fired one? It’s nothing like an M2.

17

Good discussion, by the way.

18

This is false. The intermediate cartridge is perhaps the most definitive feature of an “Assault Rifle”

No, that is not how anything works. An assault rifle, as
with many other weapons, is defines by its essential components.

For example, you don’t say “This got me from point A to point B, so it must be a Car” when you actually rode a bicycle. No, you need an engine, four wheels and a cabin of some sort. Those are essential components of an automobile.

You are mistaken here. A carbine is merely a shortened rifle, originally designed for cavalry use, however they had many different historical uses. This could include full power rifles (and often did), automatics, bolt-actions and even muzzle loaders.

A “light rifle” was a concept being developed by the US Army for specifically an intermediate cartridge rifle.

Yeah, favoritism for full power rifle rounds almost definitely a factor. I was more meaning that economics and logistics was something they would bring up a lot when testing these weapons. Basically “well we already have all these perfectly good rifle rounds. Why should we invest into designing and producing something new?”

Which, to be fair, a lot of firearm designers would sometimes build a weapon around a round they designed too, so they could secure contracts for both.

What do you think a carbine is?

Yes, a PDW. Although there are also rifle caliber PDWs. I was thinking more along the lines of a Colt MARS or AKS-74u. My point is they filled a similar role to what we would use a modern PDW for now.

Finally, I’ll end this conversation with this. FSTC-CW-07–03–70 is an army intelligence document from the 70’s and it states that “assault rifles are compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges” that should be enough info for all your defining needs.

Although if you do need more, there is also this article from the NRA that explicitly defines an assault rifle as “a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. The term “assault rifle” only applies to automatic firearms rather than the semi-automatic firearms…”

19

It’s perhaps the most definitive descriptive property of what makes an assault rifle different from a battle rifle by people who don’t know why assault rifles exist. I am not saying you don’t know why assault rifles exist (you obviously do) but the definition you are reciting is the one given to people who think that any gun in “milspec black with a scary pistol grip” is going to kill them just by looking at it.

But with weapons, a pike is a type of spear, a halberd is a type of spear, a falchion is a type of sword, a rapier is a type of sword, etc, etc, etc.

You can either identify a falchion descriptively if you don’t know why it is the way it is or you can describe it as “a curved sword designed for effectively slashing enemies from horseback.”

You can look at a rapier and identify it descriptively if you don’t know why it is made differently than a falchion or you can describe it as “a sword made for thrusting and piercing armored opponents.”

A battle rifle and an assault rifle are similarly constituted.
A battle rifle is a rifle designed to reach enemies at “field range” and have enough butt mass to be useful as a club in close quarters combat during trench warfare.

An assault rifle is a rifle specifically designed to perform in all squad infantry roles for assaulting a fixed position other than mass suppression. The need for this type of weapon is why the assault rifle exists.

20

Not exactly. Not to be pedantic, but a halberd, pike, spear and falchion are all different types of pole arms, each with different essential components.

And yes, a rapier and falchion are types of swords with different essential components. But this makes my point for me.

Similarly; Rifles, Assault Rifles, Carbines, Pistols, Machine Guns, and Submachine Guns are all different sorts of firearms with different essential components.

A Rapier can be defined as a a sword with a straight, slender and sharply pointed two-edged long blade wielded in one hand. It often includes some sort of hand guard or basket, but this is not strictly necessary for it to be considered a rapier.

21

No. First, you said “Army Intelligence” and that oxymoron cannot be allowed to stand. The only service branches with functional Intelligence are the Navy and the Air Force. FSTC-CW-07-03-70 is to explain to grunts how to tell one rifle from another. That is a “small arm identification” guide; it obviously is going to describe physical characteristics…in chewed up crayon.

Second, you still make my point. Those are all the implemented characteristics of the StG 44.

WHY did a rifle need to have an intermediate cartridge?
WHY did a rifle need to have a detachable magazine?
WHY did a rifle need to have select fire capabilities?
WHY did a rifle need to have a carbine profile?

…to have one rifle which can serve in all squad infantry roles. Those are just how the Germans achieved the goals -spectacularly well, mind you- and everyone copied them after the War.

A carbine is a rifle lighter and shorter than a battle rifle intended to function with better maneuverability. In squad assault tactics, the carbiner performs (unsurprisingly) maneuvering fire.