Red Orchestra - Soviet Garand

[Kriegerfaust007]

I think this is great the name Red Orchestra is metal as hell. The naming of agents as pianist, radios as pianos and handlers as conductors. Add in Stallins organ and the war seem down-right musical. A good Guerilla group for the soviets. Add in another M1 Garand based gun and you have a fun time. Would make a great event squad at BR2/3 depending on caliber. The red orchestra covers a large number of espionage groups. Would love to see a group like the French resistance group. Thats what i based the red orchestra idea on. Would love to see the German players bushwacked by this group.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Red Orchestra (German: Rote Kapelle, pronounced [ˈʁoːtə kaˈpɛlə] ⓘ) was the name given by the Abwehr Section III.F to anti-Nazi resistance workers in Germany in August 1941. It primarily referred to a loose network of resistance groups, connected through personal contacts, uniting hundreds of opponents of the Nazi regime. These included groups of friends who held discussions that were centred on Harro Schulze-Boysen, Adam Kuckhoff and Arvid Harnack in Berlin, alongside many others. They printed and distributed prohibited leaflets, posters, and stickers, hoping to incite civil disobedience. They aided Jews and resistance to escape the regime, documented the atrocities of the Nazis, and transmitted military intelligence to the Allies. Contrary to legend, the Red Orchestra was neither directed by Soviet communists nor under a single leadership. It was a network of groups and individuals, often operating independently. To date, about 400 members are known by name.[1][2]

The term was also used by the German Abwehr to refer to associated Soviet intelligence networks, working in Belgium, France, United Kingdom and the low countries, that were built up by Leopold Trepper on behalf of the Main Directorate of State Security (GRU).[3] Trepper ran a series of clandestine cells for organising agents. He used the latest technology, in the form of small wireless radios, to communicate with Soviet intelligence.[4]

Although the monitoring of the radios’ transmissions by the Funkabwehr would eventually lead to the organisation’s destruction, the sophisticated use of the technology enabled the organisation to behave as a network, with the ability to achieve tactical surprise and deliver high-quality intelligence, including the warning of Operation Barbarossa.[4]

To this day, the German public perception of the “Red Orchestra” is characterised by the vested interest in historical revisionism of the post-war years and propaganda efforts of both sides of the Cold War.[5]

3-
> Introducing the 7.62 mm carbine designed by Kalashnikov-Petrov. This carbine was developed at the end of 1944 and was tested in 1945.

During this period, the Red Army actively conducted the development of individual automatic weapons under the cartridge of intermediate power mod. 1943 year. Mikhail Timofeevich began to create a carbine immediately after completion of work on a light machine gun and managed in a short time - within a few months - to construct the presented sample.

When creating the carbine, Kalashnikov was inspired by the example of the American M1 Garand rifle, from which he drew and further developed some solutions. These include the loading system, the general layout solution of the locking mechanism, the trigger system.

It was during the development of this model, which was preserved in a single copy, that the most important mechanism of Kalashnikov’s weapon appeared - the locking system, which was later used for AK. Tank Archives: Kalashnikov's First Kalashnikov-Petrov carbine (Inspired by Garand) - #3 by IceySmooth

[Kriegerfaust007]

Petrov, Kalashnikov… and Garand.

Opinions that the main Russian rifle (and a little later machine-gun) cartridge 7.62x54R should be supplemented with something, or even completely replaced, first sounded soon after its adoption into service. Having taken up the design of self-loading and automatic weapons, Russian weapons designers quickly came to the conclusion that the 7.62x54R was far from the most optimal cartridge. In particular, V.G. Fedorov, who was engaged in the creation of an automatic rifle, already then made calculations proving that a 6.5-mm cartridge with reduced power compared to the standard one would be more optimal. But the transition to a new cartridge and a new weapon for him required too much investment. Fedorov had to be content with Japanese 6.5-mm cartridges, which the Russian Empire purchased during WWI along with Arisaka rifles.

Disputes about the need to change the cartridge were also conducted in the interwar period, and even after the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. In particular, Soviet weapons designers were very interested in the information about the M1 carbine developed in the United States, for a reduced cartridge compared to the standard .30-06. However, the main and decisive argument was the samples of the German “MkV-42 machine gun-carbines” captured at the front - as these models were called in Soviet business correspondence. It became clear to the specialists of the Main Artillery Directorate (GAU), who dealt with the issues of small arms, that if the USSR was not ready for a similar answer, the Wehrmacht infantry would gain a noticeable advantage on the battlefield. Therefore, the task for both the development of a new cartridge and the heavy assault rifle and the self-loading/automatic carbine for it were issued very quickly.

The choice of these types of small arms was very revealing. The fact is that, according to experts from the GAU: “The appearance of the 7.92-mm autocarbine in the German army was caused by the lack of a good light machine gun in the German army, and, possibly, the desire to find a universal infantry firearm to replace the light machine gun and rifle.”

This conclusion is by no means accidental - by this time the GAU had formed the opinion that the MG-34 was heavy and complex as a light machine gun, while in the role of a medium machine gun it was not able to provide sufficient duration and intensity of fire. At the same time, the MG-42, which replaced it, was considered to be more “shifted” towards the requirements for a heavy machine gun - but the “autocarbine” would cover the niche of a light one.

Interestingly, in some ways a similar opinion was expressed by front-line soldiers, including in polls conducted after the Victory about small arms. In their opinion, two or three submachine guns for the new cartridge were required per squad, to replace light machine guns.

From this point of view, it seemed quite logical to create a light self-loading carbine for the rest of the soldiers in the squad in addition to the assault rifle / light machine gun. Among other things, this solution also “insured” the automatic program in case of failure or delay of work.

One of those who decided to compete in the competition announced by the GAU was Mikhail Kalashnikov. The carbine, in the development of which the young designer took part, is designated in the documents as SKKP - Kalashnikov and Petrov Self-Loading Carbine. However, if you meticulously adhere to the issues of priority, then some may consider that it would be worth adding another one to these two names - the American Garand.

«The Kalashnikov and Petrov carbine was designed and developed like the Garand self-loading rifle, as a result of which in the Kalashnikov and Petrov carbine several assemblies and mechanisms in terms of design and principle of operation are developed similarly to the Garand self-loading rifle; For example: locking the barrel bore, feeding, firing mechanism, receiver mounting.

It should be noted that at the NIPSMVO GAU KA, several images with locking the barrel bore were tested, as it was done in the Kalashnikov and Petrov carbines, for example:

A) From 24/ VI-1932 to 31/X II-1938 (protocol No 74), an automatic rifle of the Kedar system chambered for the 1906 model cartridge was developed and tested, the barrel bore in which was locked by rotating the bolt by 90 degrees.

…

b) In December 1932, the Tokarev AV was tested, the barrel bore was locked by rotating the firing cylinder by 45 degrees, as a result of which the supporting lugs of the firing cylinder entered the annular groove of the receiver.

…

c) In December 1933, the AV design of the INZ-2 team was tested, the locking of the barrel bore in which was carried out by rotating the bolt like the rifle model 1891/30.

It follows from the above material that the short locking of the channel, as it was carried out in the SKKP, was carried out earlier in small arms samples, so it (locking the barrel in the SKKP) is not of any novelty."

However, the fundamental novelty of the design at that time was of little interest to the testers. Much more important was the question of how well the new carbine shoots, how reliable and convenient it will be.

The last question turned out to be, perhaps, the only point on which there were no significant comments - the carbine was recognized as convenient when firing from all positions. Comments were made about the dimensions of the front sight and slot, as well as the relative difficulty of disassembly/assembly, as well as poor access for cleaning. In a separate paragraph, they singled out the remark that an empty clip “unexpectedly jumping out” in front of the shooter’s face can "have a negative effect and reduce the effectiveness and effectiveness of fire when firing a carbine."

However, Garand’s cartridge pack was also automatically thrown away after the cartridges were used up - and this did not prevent it from quite successfully serving as the main weapon of the US infantry in World War II and the Korean War.

Unfortunately for Kalashnikov and Petrov, their carbine was less fortunate in the rest of the tests. The main problem was the presence of a more experienced competitor - by the time the SKKP was tested, Simonov had already made his own prototype. It was not easy to compete “on an equal footing” with the most experienced designer, who for many years had been dealing with the topic of automatic rifles and carbines for the old rifle cartridge.

Characteristics	SKKP	Simonov carbine	Carbine model 1944	Tactical and technical requirements of the GAU
Weight of carbine with bayonet (kg)	4,060	3,660	3,900	Not more than 3.8
Weight of recoil parts (kg)	0,500	0,450	-	At least 0.450
Length of carbine with bayonet in firing position (mm)	1412	1250	1327	1350
The same, with a bayonet in the stowed position (mm)	1112	1000	1020	1100
Barrel length (mm)	550	500	515	620
Number of Parts and Assemblies in Incomplete Disassembly	6	8	9	–-
Number of Factory Parts	106	105	–-	–-

Already from this table it can be seen that the Kalashnikov and Petrov carbine not only lost to the Simonov model, but also did not meet the customer’s requirements in several respects. At the same time, structurally, it was also made much more complex. Although the number of parts turned out to be approximately equal, the test report said that the configuration of parts at the SKKP for production was more labor-intensive than that of Simonov’s sample.

This was not yet the final verdict - the manufacturability of the product was important, but if necessary, it could be “adjusted”.

The next stage was to find out the accuracy of the fire. At 100 meters, the SKKP almost managed to meet the requirements of the terms of reference - 18.3 cm. with the specified 18 cm. But at 300 meters, the carbine “let down” - the spread of bullets in the target was only 46.7 cm, and according to the TTT, no more than 36 cm was required for this line.

However, the reduced accuracy could also be “forgiven”, the methods of improving weapons in this direction were quite well known. The fate of the Kalashnikov and Petrov carbine was decided by swamp water. After 10 minutes of lying in the swamp, the SKKP failed. This meant the failure of damage tests - the total number of delays in difficult conditions should not exceed 2%, but it turned out to be more than 11%.

The reasons for this are stated in the test report as follows:

«The main type of delays is the non-reflection of cartridge cases (9.9%), which is 87.7% of the total number of delays. Non-reflection of the cartridge cases occurs due to incomplete recoil of the mobile system. Incomplete departure of the mobile system occurred due to insufficient energy during rollback. For example, bicycle symmetric studies of the operation of automation show that with thick lubrication of parts and various kinds of dirt during movement, there is a significant loss of energy by the bolt from the moment of the end of the action of the pusher (piston) on the bolt."

The conclusion of the testers was unequivocal - the Kalashnikov and Petrov carbine did not meet the requirements of the GAU KA for the new carbine either in terms of combat or design characteristics. In addition, the SKKP also lost to the samples previously tested at the test site - first of all, the Simonov carbine, the future SKS.

The refinement of the CCR was also considered inappropriate, as it was obvious that a new design would actually be required.

Most likely, Mikhail Kalashnikov himself shared the same opinion. The young designer received another lesson - first of all, about how important it is to ensure the reliability of automation. As well as tips on how to solve this problem.

And the world learned about how much he succeeded in this a few decades later - in the rice fields of Vietnam.

Andrey Ulanov.

[Naohmcete]

br 3 or 4 and ok

[SaigyojiYuYuKo]

Weapons of this level still deserve BR 4? BR 2 is already more than enough — even the M1 Carbine is just BR 2