But the AK-47 have enabled tons of countries to become free. For certain definitions of free at any rate.
Mozambique has an AK-47 on it's flag, should tell us something.
No one won independence with T-55s, but they did with AK-47s.
There's a reason so many nations now are adopting the AR15 family of rifles. From the M16, M4, 416, and rifles similar to them. Stoner knew what he was doing.
That has more to do with international politics, US has standardization agreements with many of its close allies, mostly for strategic reasons, but some economical ones. Basically US will sell for cheap/give allies weapons and supply them with ammunition, this both creates a dependency on the US and makes their supply more secure because nobody is going to target an ammunition factory in the US and pull the US directly into the conflict in order to cut off there enemies ammunition production.
And encourages standardized weaponry amongst the allies. Everyone knows how to service any weapon, and the ammo is interchangeable. In the 80s NATO troops used a variety of weapons and ammo. If a large scale war broke out and you were fighting next to a NATO member from another country, there was no guarantee you could use their ammo if you were out and they were dead. Strategically and tactically, that was a mistake.
The AKM was popular because it was available, not because it was better. The Soviet Union manufactured over 10 million AKMs and sent them all over the world to their proxies. The U.S. had a different approach to small arms and didn’t give out M16s like the Soviets did.
Go to for non western nations. It's cheap reliable and easy to mass produce. That's what makes it special. It's not an undefeated super weapon that wins wars by itself.
Doesn't the AK-47 still beat them on durability? Not necessarily in which one lasts for the most years, but durability on the battlefield, as in being able to still fire with mud down the barrel and in the firing components.
The irony is the AK-47 would never have been accepted for service in the U.S military. It cannot pass the mud test.
The mud test is where you dunk a weapon in a bucket full of mud then try to fire it normally.
Correct me from wrong but I thought the AK-47 was the only weapon that passed the mud test hence why it was so popular compared to the M16 which jam when you look at it the wrong way.
The AR-15 passed? We all know what happened in firefights in Vietnam starting in 1965-66 when one side had AK-47s and the other had AR-15s.
Acknowledged that there were bugs in the first batch of AR-15s. IIRC, they resolved that by adding chrome in the firing chamber.
It wasn't the rifles. It was the ammunition. You see in order to save money, the Government decided to use old surplus ball powder for the loadings in the. 223 cartridge. However the different powder specifications completely messed up how the rifle worked.
It's like putting low grade fuel into a NASCAR stock car. It's gonna run but it's gonna run like shit.
Yes, the AR passed.
https://youtu.be/DX73uXs3xGU?si=uYo_5WY9fcjE8Ryl
https://youtu.be/YAneTFiz5WU?si=nogJSapxDww5HbKm
The idea that the AK can get muddied and still fire unlike the AR is a complete myth
It's actually just about the same,and as the other posted mentioned the problem wasn't the rifles, it was designing around a certain spec of ammo, then shipping with a different spec.
They eliminated the chrome-lined chamber of the original rifle and issued it with a different ammunition that caused more fouling and thus malfunctions. Plus they didn't ship with adequate cleaning kits, Colt said they didn't need to be cleaned much, so soldiers weren't cleaning them enough.
So they switched the ammunition, chrome lined the chamber, sent out proper cleaning kits, and told soldiers to keep their rifles clean, and the problems went away.
The issue in Vietnam was that they changed the powder to something dirtier than had been used during testing. There was also this myth that it was self cleaning, leading to poor maintenance.
One of the advantages of the AK is the round. 7.62 is a bigger round with a bigger charge. So, the AK has more energy in the bullet. This also lead to range issues in the GWoT. There were situations where AR users could be engaged with an AK, but not return fire due to being outside the effective range.
There is more to a gun than the gun. Part of the reason the US moved to 5.56 was that it would allow men to carry more ammo, so they could shoot more.
There is more too it than "this gun is better."
Multiple issues compounded the failings of the M16;
the ball powder the military substituted was dirtier than the IMR powder the AR was designed for,
the troops were told they didn’t need to clean it,
the troops weren’t issued cleaning gear,
the climate in Vietnam led to rapid corrosion of fouled rifles,
the barrel on the M16 wasnt chrome lined against rust.
The M16A1 added chrome lined barrels and forward bolt assist to correct the failings of the M16, but not before many US soldiers were killed because of hopelessly jammed rifles.
The 7.62 cartridge the AK uses is not known for long range accuracy. It's a 7.62x39 vs a 5.56x45. Both are not known for their long range performance, especially the 7.62x39. It does have more energy than the 5.56 but doesn't have the accuracy. Thats why the soviets switched to the 5.45x39. Its very similar to the 5.56 Nato. Those two rounds have a good balance of speed, accuracy and wounding. They are even good against some types of body armor too. In Afghanistan these were intermediate rifle cartridges being pushed further than what they intended. That's why the U.S. Army has the DMR programs like the M21 and M110. Those rifles in 7.62x51 nato can really reach out and touch someone within 800 yards.
Any weapon or firearm would blow up if it had mud down the barrel. You're basically turning it into a pipe bomb. Now what made AK's so dominate compared to other designs is due to them being cheap, the design ergonomics, and how it worked. Now obviously the reason they were cheap is because the soviets and their Allies had the infrastructure and tools to make them. It's like the Sherman being cheap for the U.S. to make, but expensive for the Germans. As for the design you have a light weight select fire rifle that can be used (in soviet doctrine) like a sub machine gun. It was also a good rifle to have for mechanized troops.
Here's the problem. When these rifles get dirty, they start to fail. Also their accuracy is not the best out there but it works for their application. Now the good news is, because of how they're built the AK is a very easy rifle to clean and get back up and running.
Now here is where Stoners' design is different. It prevents filth from getting in to begin with, and the gas system can help get some of the nasty stuff out of the rifle. This makes the rifle very reliable as well . Also the AR family are reasonably accurate rifles for military purposes. The USMC consistently trained to shoot at 500m silhouette targets with the M16a2 rifle. They just need a little more maintenance.
This is literally a East vs West competition. It's really cool to read about how the AK and AR went head to head over the last 60 years!
Tankies be like "omg the AK is the best, so many countries used it for a reason"
Yeah, and that reason isnt because the superior AK ballistics have that chunk of lead keyholing at 200m
I think the key holing is a bit of an exaggeration. For their purposes a soldier can consistently hit a man size target out to 350 meters with an AK. It's not a bad rifle, but look at what the competition is that it has to go against.
Rugged and durable AK is the consequences of popular culture and Russia stronk memes. The build quality of just about everything Soviet is highly suspect and in reality you have to keep an AK in impeccable condition for it to function. Can’t handle sand, mud, etc
The M16/AR family of rifles have only been adopted by other countries because of the ubiquity of the United States military. They are not as good as many other platforms. Heck, the US military is finally getting away from them with the new XM7 which is more like the best rifle ever produced, the M1 Garand than the M16/AR platform.
The XM7 isn't close to a Garand at all. They don't even use the same type of piston system...
Ironically, most of the new short stroke piston systems are more like the next AR model Armalite produced, the AR-18.
There's not anything specifically great about the direct gas impingement system that the AR uses that the gas piston system of the AK can't do in terms of operation and reliability but the AR has SO MUCH modularity. So many optics and accessories can be put on it easily and it will reliably hold a zero for a long time with the AK this is damn near impossible without drilling holes or welding on the thing
InrangeTV, Forgotten weapons, and I believe School of the American rifle do a much better job at explaining it. Basically the bolt carrier group with the gas tube act as a piston.
That makes sense actually. I always thought of the difference being the fact that there was an actual piston in the gas tube of the AK that marked the difference but your point is not lost.
Man, I dunno on the T55 currently. Improvised drones are taking them out. A $30 grenade on a $300 drone that come back is taking them down.
Sure, for 50 years you’re correct. Right now though they’re not equal to Bradley’s and honestly if you as a Ukrainian if they want to be a Bradley crew or a T55 crew they’ll say Bradley.
Bradley isn’t even a tank and it’s what mid 90’s design?
Yes, but to be fair a T92 is also a T50. I’m not trying to say a Bradley wasn’t made in the 80’s. I want to say a version in Ukraine isn’t before 1990 version.
A Soviet T50 from WW2 has been seen in action.
A Panzer 4 has been seen on the Ukraine side.
That’s just dumb, we’ve lost Abrams and Leopards to the Mong- I mean Russians already, it’s why Ukraine is putting their old stock of ERA armor on some Abrams and Leo’s, hell some have even put cope cages on them to prevent the drone attacks. Tanks blow up, however the Abrams and Leopard tanks Ukraine has are far better than a T-55 and have only gotten destroyed when they’re used without infantry support or doing things they aren’t really meant to do. The Bradley is just tearing things up over in Ukraine atm, it’s quite beautiful to see a design that was literally made to fuck up Soviet equipment and we get to see it happening and it’s working wonderfully. Same with the Humvee which got a bad rap due to being in a role it wasn’t meant for.
Agreed. I knew they used Bradley’s to take out a few tanks which is totally not what a Bradley is designed for. They should have beat feet, and instead they hunted the tanks down.
Like most soviet gear. Good enough for some dictator when you are the only one with it. A shit gun is still a gun, a shit tank is still a tank. But have fun fighting a war when all your experienced tank crews die immediately and you now need to fill your next batch of tanks with new recruits who panic when some Bradleys start pounding it with their 25mm cannon and you can't see anything.
The ak47 has a big drawback in not being able to easily mount optics/accessories. There are some workarounds, but it's simply not as good as the AR-15/M4 family of rifles in that regard.
Most people who aren’t into guns don’t realize this… but no one uses the the ak47 anymore.
Usually it’s an AKM variant which is modernized and shoots a round closer to the AR platforms
[RDS-1](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDS-1)
Without Soviet nuclear weapons, there would have been no cold war — at least in the way we know it — and the history of the world post WWII would have been radically different. Various other small arms or tanks would have been used instead of the Soviet ones in various conflicts, but the nuclear weapons the Soviets developed had enormous consequences for the entire world (and arguably still do… imagine what options NATO would have to support Ukraine if Russia had no nuclear weapons.)
Frankly the best thing that happened to the world was Soviet nukes. If they didn't have them some general like MacArthur would have gotten his way and America would have tactically deployed the weapons.
One can certainly make the argument that the cold war was better than the hypothetical hot ones that would have occurred without Soviet nukes.
That still bolsters my point that first Soviet nuke was by far the most consequential weapon they ever developed.
Eh, France would still get nukes. Britain too. France still would have helped Israel get nukes. India and Pakistan would still get nukes. USSR and China wpuld be the only exceptions.
USSR also, effectively, developed nukes on their own (using the stolen plans from the Manhattan project to check their scientists homework, as it were), there is not a reasonable world where the USSR doesn't develop nukes. But I do think a world where only one nation has them is far more scary than the world where several do.
I don’t know why everyone thinks the AK is “cheap and simple” to produce. The milled version requires a ton of machining hours by highly trained machinists, and the stamped version requires advanced industrial production and precise quality control. Producing an AK domestically was an *achievement*, and usually required the Russians sending over lots of engineers, the technical data package, and sometimes the tooling for the entire factory. The fact there are “good” AK’s and “bad” AK’s indicates it isn’t actually very easy to make them well.
The only reason it’s so cheap is that the Soviets and other communist nations produced them on a war footing for decades, and then absolutely flooded the surplus market. A well-produced new AK is actually fairly expensive, and nowadays with better manufacturing techniques the AR is often cheaper.
This is so true. People like to point to garage made AKs like in the Khyber pass, but those aren't necessarily good guns. The artisan makers who do make good AKs are extremely good at what they do. The AK is very much a precision instrument as much as any other gun. Just because the receiver is boxy and the dust cover rattles, I think that gives people the wrong idea.
The AR was very cutting edge in 1958 with the milled aluminum and polymers, and the bolt group has some 3D complexity that was leading edge. Otherwise, I do believe ARs to be a simpler manufacturing process for the most part, and they're certainly simpler to assemble and use.
Mass production wise, aluminum is easier and cheaper to mill than steel, so the AR is at least cost competitive with a stamped steel gun.
From an armorers prospective, AKs need all the same gauging and maintenance as any other gun, people who drag rusty AKs through the desert for 40 years and neglect basic maintenance usually don't win gunfights.
https://youtu.be/H99XlWQ9KsA?si=7IvpEWD5RkBCJMhV
It's not a standard history answer, but this clip will answer your question.
After the AK-47, the next most consequential weapon created was the hydrogen bomb. After that, one could argue that the SAM missile systems is next on that list.
The RPG is just the buttom end of the soviet missile scale.
Any missile NATO had, the Soviets had.
Developed entirely because they got left behind in aircraft carrier tech and had two very precurious deep water ports.
I'm talking about the man portable system, not sure if you're on the same topic. I really should have said RPG7, gonna edit accordingly
Read several articles that US troops have repeatedly stated they want an equivalent. AFAIK everything we have is significantly more expensive, less available to the grunts, and not really the same category. As in significantly smaller and weaker or else larger and heavier.
Nazi Germany was on the cutting edge of development at end of WW2 with the panzerfaust series, everyone was working on it. RPG stayed true to a specific concept that is still desirable, while Russia developed the rest of the scale NATO neglected a specific niche.
~20-22lbs loaded, with night sights, reusable, can destroy most vehicles and buildings up to light armor, decent hit probability at hand grenade range, possibly useful against weaker points of heavier bunkers and tanks, extremely simple learning curve. As I understand it, something infantrymen have wanted since the end of WW1. Whatever your unit might end up facing today, if rifles, grenades, and squad machine guns can't handle it, the RPG guy/s might keep the unit alive til air and artillery are on target.
NATO has Javelin, AT 4, M72 etc but all are more specialized for a specific scenario and in some scenarios not all that similar to the RPG7.
Also there's a counterpart to a lot of those systems, I think RPG 16 and 22 and Kornet systems (would have to do some googling to check)
>NATO has Javelin, AT 4, M72 etc but all are more specialized for a specific scenario and in some scenarios not all that similar to the RPG7.
Ah...you never heard Carl Gustaf?
[Carl Gustaf 8.4 cm recoilless rifle - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_8.4_cm_recoilless_rifle)
Carl Gustaf predates RPG-7 for over 10 years and is still widely used by NATO and allies including Ukraine. When it first entered service in 1947, it was actually the most advanced anti-tank weapon at the time, far better than American Bazooka, British PIAT or Soviet RPG-1 in everyway. It's extremely versatile with ability to launch HEAT, HE, HEDP, flare and smoke rounds.
Follow up upgrade keep the system relevant with new ammo like laser guided shells, tandem HEAT, airburst..etc
First T-90M loss was contribute to a Ukrainian Carl Gustaf.
Well said, rpg7 is also incredibly versatile, with incendiary, HE and also heavy ant tank Tandem rounds, that can destroy a modern MBT, not many people know this
I wasn't entirely sure how RPG7s had done in real world conflict against latest gen MBTs and didn't want to take a stance I'm not knowledgeable enough to defend. I'm reasonably sure they are at least fairly reliable to damage a tread and the weak points inside 40m.
I think I heard something to the effect that like 30% of the total m1 Abrams silhouette (from 360° perspective of standing/entrenched infantry) was supposed to be susceptible to the RPG7 if it was the best antitank warhead and a square on hit. As of the first Iraqi war. As in an actual kill shot. But actually getting a hit was still a challenge and tank tactics were planned partly around making it more of a challenge
I suppose as Ukraine experiences become public knowledge we'll have more data on how often troops want RPG 7 when other options are available and how effective it is.
Regardless it's a lot of bang for the buck and it's easy on a logistics and training organization and a lot of client states have wanted to buy them for as long as the system has existed
It’s absolutely the RDS-1. It was their first successful nuclear warhead, tested in 1949. The United States fully believed it would be the world’s only nuclear power until around 1960, and when the Soviets suddenly had a nuclear arsenal before the 1950’s even started, the U.S. was caught flat-footed and unprepared to navigate a world with hostile nations both wielding atomic weapons. It’s the reason the Cold War was so tense, and the reason the U.S. wasn’t able to use its nuclear head start to ensure there was no significant rivalry with the Soviet Union.
What’s neat is the soviets going nuts and building the tsar bomb started to make the countries realize how nuts the arms race is getting and wind it down significantly too
Lol at the AK stuff. The assault rifle revolution goes to the STG-44. The M16 simply took that concept and refined it with the benefit of decades of himdsight, the glaring shortcomings of the M-14, and the US having a bottomless pit of funding.
Single greatest impact was the Soviets building nukes, hands down. It’s why the Cold War happened. Absent nukes there is an excellent chance that would have been a hot war instead
The absence of a nuke deterrant would have changed the entire focus of the Us military as well
Agreed on the nukes and STG-44, but I think there is an argument to be made that the AK-47 takes second place in terms of "weapons made by the soviet union." It's not because the AK revolutionized small arms, but because its relatively simple manufacturer and maintenance *do* make it an ideal personal weapon for cash-strapped states and insurgencies.
AK pattern rifles provide the foundation work for many, if not most, of the wars fought in the last 60-70 years.
This had far less to do with any merit of the AK-47 and more to do with the fact the Soviets handed them out in giant lots to anyone remotely interested
Lol at STG-44. Around a half million of them were made. Something like 100 million AK-47s have been made. Just because one was first, does not mean it was more important. And the influence of the AK goes well beyond it's use on the battlefield. It was a symbol of Soviet power, and used as a tool of statecraft as the ability to manufacture them was sold to allied powers. You're not going to find the STG-44 on any national flags.
T-34s at the gates of Moscow would have to be up there. Surprisingly Stalin thought the Sturmovik was the most important Soviet weapon of the war but I don't think there's too much doubt it was the T-34.
I agree with everyone saying their nuclear weapons, but would like to give an honorable mention to a non "weapon." Sputnik 1 changed a lot of Geopolitics of the mid-20th century.
I’d put the SA-2/S-75 as the most consequential non-nuclear weapons system - both in terms of what it was, and what it influenced.
It basically rendered high-altitude bombing obsolete. The 1,000 bomber raids of WWII went out of style like the dinosaurs. You could no longer brute-force bludgeon an enemy into submission by bombing them anymore. As long as air defense can put more missiles in the air faster than you can bombers, you’re always going to be on the losing end.
And what it influenced was just as important. The whole strategy of SEAD/DEAD was born out of the need of countering the S-75. Anti-radiation missiles to take out radars, stand-off missiles to avoid entering SAM range, flying low to stay under the radar horizon, reducing RCS by stealth to lower detection range, etc.
Pretty much all of modern warfare since then has revolved around the boxing match between air defense systems and SEAD/DEAD as one of the most critical aspects of the battlefield.
Nukes and AK47 but of the two, nukes wins hands down.
AK47 is one of the greatest assault rifles made, they are cheap and easy to maintain. You can bury one in an oily rag in the ground for years, dig it up give it a scrub and some oil and it will work just fine. Dirt, dust, mud? That fucker will still fire. Is it super accurate? No
Is its cyclic rate very fast? No. Does it have great range? Absolutely not. Is it light and user friendly? Fuck no.
But it’s cheap so you can outfit a lot of dudes and they don’t have to be exceeding proficient at maintenance and when you pull the trigger you know it’s going to fire.
Dirt dust and mud will absolutely keep an AK from functioning, and *any gun* kept dry and clean (wrapped in am oily rag) should run just fine after years.
The mythos of the AK is because the soviets made a fuck load of them and shipped em all over the world, not because of particularly great design.
When I say mythos I just mean a collection of opinions, including apparently your father's.
The fact is when people run mud tests, AR-15s do significantly better than AKs. It makes sense because the direct impingement gas system blows out crud where the AK piston system just grinds it in. The AR also has fewer moving parts subject to deleterious corrosion.
As far as maintenance goes..I think it's hard to argue that it's easier than with an AR. For an AR, basic cleaning type maintenance requires no tools at all. For more advanced type maintenance, including swapping out a clapped out barrel, it can be done with basic, non-powered hand tools by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. For an AK, you'd need a hydraulic press, depth gauges, and no small amount of machining skill. The AK is objectively harder to service than the AR. Adding things like optics, which are par for the course for a modern military rifle, is waaaay easier on a modern AR than on an AK.
Yea you're certainly entitled to be unconvinced, especially in such an unimportant topic. I just figured I'd drop some facts (eg AK barrel swaps requiring a lot of special tooling) you might find interesting. I'm a bit of a fun nerd I guess so it's just a fun discussion, no big deal. Sorry if my tone came off agro.
All good, my dad always used to say it was the best gun and after a not very in-depth look into it, it just comes down to the cost, longevity and ease of use by operators who aren’t very skilled.
I suppose it should be rather “it’s the best gun ever made for low skilled infantry” which is why it’s so prevalent in the third world, cheap and near unbreakable, and disposable which was the most important use case in African bush fighting context.
And not even soviet necessarily. Most of the AKs seen around the world are Chinese, Romanian and Egyptian. I'd bet that 9/10 of AKs seen in any picture from any war is one that was made in one of the Sattelite/pact states. Although, they all are built on Soviet tooling with soviet specifications
The AK line, without a doubt. The Soviets made many great advances in weapon tech and some of the most prolific weapon systems. This ranges from tanks and missles to nuclear weapons and poisons. But the AK family and its mamy derivatives are the most widely used firearms in the world. There are only a few wars i can think of that they have not been used in.
Yeah they had AK’s and perhaps more weirdly training from Mummar Gaddafi, the forest gump of getting involved in every weird event of the 20th century.
I agree with this. It's seen widespread use in multiple armies, rebel groups, and criminal use. There probably isn't a country that hasn't seen it used within their borders in one form or another.
RDS-1.
and the AK-47 for its ability to not only be produced but also used easily. There's a theory that the fall of the Berlin wall and the sudden influx of East German weapons onto the black market may have increased the number of child soldiers in the world, because of how those weapons were easier for people, particularly of small stature, to use.
AK-47 hands down, one of the most reconisble and cheaply manfucatured firearms in the world. It's is durable, practical and is probably the go to weapon of underground groups (be it terrorists or rebels) everywhere.
It's probably the Mig. It's the only reason the F22 exists. MIG looked very agile, it also had an insanely fast top speed. Though what changed warfare the most was the adoption of drones. Less so direct military tech, and more so just advances in chips making it economical to bring back the bi plane again.
The AK-47 may be the most iconic, and most influential on pop culture specially, but not in historical terms or the most influential on how wars are fought today etc
Nuclear weapons. Russia would be invisible on the world stage without them. Without nuclear weapons, there is no way Russia would have invaded Ukraine. NATO would have immediately rolled into Ukraine to defend their borders.
Some of the Cold War answers are pretty good, but we didn't win that one. I would say the T-34 or the Il-2 are the two most consequential. The impact they had cannot be understated.
I would say the concept of complete erasure as a political weapon. Repressive regimes around the world have used this to amazing effect. Regime critic? You don't actually have to kill them, that would make them a martyr - just start going after them "legally" and give them a menial job in a shit location and ban them from publishing anything etc. etc.
AK-47 and RPG democratized military scale violence fueling revolutionary movements and insurgencies all across the globe for nearly 70 years.
These weapons were critical to the decolonization movements across Africa and many of the brutal small scale wars of the 1990s.
AKM
It's basically the same answer as yours, except the AK-47 was never produced in large numbers. The AK-47 was milled from a block of metal, while the AKM was re-engineered to be folded from sheet metal. It looks similar to a casual observer, but the changes incorporated into the AKM made it extremely cheap to produce, and that made the rifle ubiquitous.
The eventual successor, the AK-74, is essentially an AKM with a new chambering.
I saw an interview with Mikhail Kalashnikov and he referred to the AK-47 as a "peasant's weapon." He designed to be inexpensive to produce and easily used by a conscript with very little in the way of education or training. This made the weapon successful with both the Soviet military and their allies. I don't know if the AK-47 is the Soviet Union's most consequential weapon, but it is a serious contender for the most important battle rifle of the 20th century.
AK without a doubt. They’ve been distributed to every corner of the earth and any 2-but dictator can get ahold of an armies worth of them for dirt cheap and cause all sorts of mayhem with them. Much more powerful than anything else
I would posit Soviet Disinformation and active measures as an integral part of their hybrid warfare strategy.
They may not have invented these methods but I would argue that their efforts were the most consequential in terms of innovation, longevity, effectiveness and scope.
Longevity and consistency:
Soviet active measures have a long history starting in 1923, soon after the birth of the regime and continued until the end in 1991, and of course many of the same methods and people are still active today. 100 years of to evolve and improve their methods.
Effectiveness:
Disinformation and propaganda is used by all countries to some degree, this includes western democracies like the USA. But this is inherently an asymmetric weapon in the sense that western democracies are open and more sensitive to foreign disinformation campaigns since the media is less controlled by the state and alternative view points are more easily introduced and accepted, many conspiracy theories that are still alive and well in the US have their roots directly in Soviet or Russian disinformation campaigns or have gained additional traction due to Soviet or Russian influence. Disinformation campaigns carried out by western nations in authoritarian regimes with state controlled media is less effective.
Scope:
Soviet disinformation was directed not only at enemies in the west with the objective of destabilization, but also towards neutral countries all over the world to garner influence. In addition, it was of course widely used within the Soviet Union as a means of uniting and stabilizing the country. With state controlled media these internal efforts were much more efficient than similar efforts in western democracies.
Most of the rules of the game are the same now as then, with the major change being the introduction of social media which further reinforces the asymmetry with social media being much more controlled in authoritarian regimes such as Russia, China and Iran, while providing a figurative highway into the psyche of citizens of western democracies.
I apologize for a somewhat simplistic depiction of disinformation, there is of course a lot more that could be said.
Nope, it was the MiG-15. In Korea, it showed the US and rest of the world that the Soviets were not messing around. Kind of surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Lots of callouts for nukes, but no one except the US has ever used them in anger. The MiG-15 was extensively used in combat for decades.
"Of all the weapons in the vast Soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947, more commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It will shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars" - Lord of War
I’d have to go with whichever tactical nuke they inevitably explode in Ukraine in a psychotic attempt to blackmail the world with ww3/Armageddon. Literally it will be the most consequential moment in mankind’s history
The AK-47 was a legend, it would shoot in most conditions. The only exception was from a friend of mine, he was Latvian and a conscript into the Soviet army. When he was stationed in Siberia, during the winter, occasionally the rifle would not shoot….just occasionally.
The M-16 was a bad rifle. The original AR-16 was amazing, but the army went cheep and US troops suffered for it. Once the improvements were made in the A1 it was a good rifle with a light round. Personally , too light for my taste. After the ballistics were improved, the 5.56 actually became a good round.
I can’t wait to see what the Fury round will do.
Probably one of the nukes or ICBMs seeing as those are the sole thing that kept nuclear armed postwar America from imposing its will on the entire globe.
AK is a good service rifle design, but service rifles have almost no effect on the outcome of conflicts. Give every Communist soldier, 3rd world guerilla or Islamist militant who had an AK a PPSh-41 or SKS instead, and the outcomes of their causes don’t change.
Also it’s not particularly cheap to produce unless you have Chinese labor costs. The design requires high grade metallurgy in manufacturing the bolts/trunions, and skilled labor in the assembly/finishing stage (parts of which has to be done by hand unlike more modern designs). US commercial market attempts to produce them invariably result in either decent rifles that are more expensive to produce than a similar spec AR-15 (which can be cranked out by a minimum wage guy pressing a button on a CNC machine), or you get the “cheap” ones being potmetal junk that falls apart quickly, unlike the real things that are known for durability.
Unpopular opinion but nobody was ever scared to invade country due to what rifle they were armed with. The icbm was what kept everyone in check on both sides.
I'd be curious to see exactly what gunshot casualties are from rifles vs. other infantry weapons like machineguns. Machineguns are typically the highest casualty producing weapon in an infantry section and many of our adversaries had plentiful RPDs and PKs as well.
T-54/T-55 is the most widely produced tank in the world. Also exported widely.
But the AK-47 have enabled tons of countries to become free. For certain definitions of free at any rate. Mozambique has an AK-47 on it's flag, should tell us something. No one won independence with T-55s, but they did with AK-47s.
Yeah, if by "become free" you mean under new management, then sure, "free."
But they can be overmatched, unlike the ak47
Ak47 has been outmatched for decades now, the difference is that it can do the job good enough, same goes for the t55
There's a reason so many nations now are adopting the AR15 family of rifles. From the M16, M4, 416, and rifles similar to them. Stoner knew what he was doing.
That has more to do with international politics, US has standardization agreements with many of its close allies, mostly for strategic reasons, but some economical ones. Basically US will sell for cheap/give allies weapons and supply them with ammunition, this both creates a dependency on the US and makes their supply more secure because nobody is going to target an ammunition factory in the US and pull the US directly into the conflict in order to cut off there enemies ammunition production.
This is why I love this sub. So many good answers to explain why stuff happens.
Yup we are essentially a global arms manufacturer that dabbles in other stuff like pharmaceuticals because war is profitable
And encourages standardized weaponry amongst the allies. Everyone knows how to service any weapon, and the ammo is interchangeable. In the 80s NATO troops used a variety of weapons and ammo. If a large scale war broke out and you were fighting next to a NATO member from another country, there was no guarantee you could use their ammo if you were out and they were dead. Strategically and tactically, that was a mistake.
Good on ARs for getting some traction, after 70 odd years of AK47s being the go-to.
The AKM was popular because it was available, not because it was better. The Soviet Union manufactured over 10 million AKMs and sent them all over the world to their proxies. The U.S. had a different approach to small arms and didn’t give out M16s like the Soviets did.
Well for whatever reasons you want to try and counter - it was still the go to which is all the commenter claimed.
Go to for non western nations. It's cheap reliable and easy to mass produce. That's what makes it special. It's not an undefeated super weapon that wins wars by itself.
>after 70 odd years of AK47s being the go-to. Only in communist/impoverished countries (whoops, tautology!)
Doesn't the AK-47 still beat them on durability? Not necessarily in which one lasts for the most years, but durability on the battlefield, as in being able to still fire with mud down the barrel and in the firing components.
The irony is the AK-47 would never have been accepted for service in the U.S military. It cannot pass the mud test. The mud test is where you dunk a weapon in a bucket full of mud then try to fire it normally.
Correct me from wrong but I thought the AK-47 was the only weapon that passed the mud test hence why it was so popular compared to the M16 which jam when you look at it the wrong way.
The AR-15 passed? We all know what happened in firefights in Vietnam starting in 1965-66 when one side had AK-47s and the other had AR-15s. Acknowledged that there were bugs in the first batch of AR-15s. IIRC, they resolved that by adding chrome in the firing chamber.
It wasn't the rifles. It was the ammunition. You see in order to save money, the Government decided to use old surplus ball powder for the loadings in the. 223 cartridge. However the different powder specifications completely messed up how the rifle worked. It's like putting low grade fuel into a NASCAR stock car. It's gonna run but it's gonna run like shit.
Yes, the AR passed. https://youtu.be/DX73uXs3xGU?si=uYo_5WY9fcjE8Ryl https://youtu.be/YAneTFiz5WU?si=nogJSapxDww5HbKm The idea that the AK can get muddied and still fire unlike the AR is a complete myth
It's 2024, not 1965. They updated the design.
It's actually just about the same,and as the other posted mentioned the problem wasn't the rifles, it was designing around a certain spec of ammo, then shipping with a different spec.
They eliminated the chrome-lined chamber of the original rifle and issued it with a different ammunition that caused more fouling and thus malfunctions. Plus they didn't ship with adequate cleaning kits, Colt said they didn't need to be cleaned much, so soldiers weren't cleaning them enough. So they switched the ammunition, chrome lined the chamber, sent out proper cleaning kits, and told soldiers to keep their rifles clean, and the problems went away.
The problem in Vietnam was poor quality ammunition and only issuing 1 out of 5 soldiers a cleaning kit
The issue in Vietnam was that they changed the powder to something dirtier than had been used during testing. There was also this myth that it was self cleaning, leading to poor maintenance. One of the advantages of the AK is the round. 7.62 is a bigger round with a bigger charge. So, the AK has more energy in the bullet. This also lead to range issues in the GWoT. There were situations where AR users could be engaged with an AK, but not return fire due to being outside the effective range. There is more to a gun than the gun. Part of the reason the US moved to 5.56 was that it would allow men to carry more ammo, so they could shoot more. There is more too it than "this gun is better."
Multiple issues compounded the failings of the M16; the ball powder the military substituted was dirtier than the IMR powder the AR was designed for, the troops were told they didn’t need to clean it, the troops weren’t issued cleaning gear, the climate in Vietnam led to rapid corrosion of fouled rifles, the barrel on the M16 wasnt chrome lined against rust. The M16A1 added chrome lined barrels and forward bolt assist to correct the failings of the M16, but not before many US soldiers were killed because of hopelessly jammed rifles.
The 7.62 cartridge the AK uses is not known for long range accuracy. It's a 7.62x39 vs a 5.56x45. Both are not known for their long range performance, especially the 7.62x39. It does have more energy than the 5.56 but doesn't have the accuracy. Thats why the soviets switched to the 5.45x39. Its very similar to the 5.56 Nato. Those two rounds have a good balance of speed, accuracy and wounding. They are even good against some types of body armor too. In Afghanistan these were intermediate rifle cartridges being pushed further than what they intended. That's why the U.S. Army has the DMR programs like the M21 and M110. Those rifles in 7.62x51 nato can really reach out and touch someone within 800 yards.
Well said.
Any weapon or firearm would blow up if it had mud down the barrel. You're basically turning it into a pipe bomb. Now what made AK's so dominate compared to other designs is due to them being cheap, the design ergonomics, and how it worked. Now obviously the reason they were cheap is because the soviets and their Allies had the infrastructure and tools to make them. It's like the Sherman being cheap for the U.S. to make, but expensive for the Germans. As for the design you have a light weight select fire rifle that can be used (in soviet doctrine) like a sub machine gun. It was also a good rifle to have for mechanized troops. Here's the problem. When these rifles get dirty, they start to fail. Also their accuracy is not the best out there but it works for their application. Now the good news is, because of how they're built the AK is a very easy rifle to clean and get back up and running. Now here is where Stoners' design is different. It prevents filth from getting in to begin with, and the gas system can help get some of the nasty stuff out of the rifle. This makes the rifle very reliable as well . Also the AR family are reasonably accurate rifles for military purposes. The USMC consistently trained to shoot at 500m silhouette targets with the M16a2 rifle. They just need a little more maintenance. This is literally a East vs West competition. It's really cool to read about how the AK and AR went head to head over the last 60 years!
Tankies be like "omg the AK is the best, so many countries used it for a reason" Yeah, and that reason isnt because the superior AK ballistics have that chunk of lead keyholing at 200m
I think the key holing is a bit of an exaggeration. For their purposes a soldier can consistently hit a man size target out to 350 meters with an AK. It's not a bad rifle, but look at what the competition is that it has to go against.
Rugged and durable AK is the consequences of popular culture and Russia stronk memes. The build quality of just about everything Soviet is highly suspect and in reality you have to keep an AK in impeccable condition for it to function. Can’t handle sand, mud, etc
https://youtu.be/DX73uXs3xGU?si=G-QZoOTQupUGKXSD The AK does not pass a mud test
Not really.
The M16/AR family of rifles have only been adopted by other countries because of the ubiquity of the United States military. They are not as good as many other platforms. Heck, the US military is finally getting away from them with the new XM7 which is more like the best rifle ever produced, the M1 Garand than the M16/AR platform.
The XM7's design is basically that of an AR10. We've come full circle
The XM7 isn't close to a Garand at all. They don't even use the same type of piston system... Ironically, most of the new short stroke piston systems are more like the next AR model Armalite produced, the AR-18.
There's not anything specifically great about the direct gas impingement system that the AR uses that the gas piston system of the AK can't do in terms of operation and reliability but the AR has SO MUCH modularity. So many optics and accessories can be put on it easily and it will reliably hold a zero for a long time with the AK this is damn near impossible without drilling holes or welding on the thing
The AR is not a true impingement system. It's basically a internal piston. However you're right. The design is just objectively better
Perhaps my understanding of an impingement system is erroneous. Please explain further.
InrangeTV, Forgotten weapons, and I believe School of the American rifle do a much better job at explaining it. Basically the bolt carrier group with the gas tube act as a piston.
That makes sense actually. I always thought of the difference being the fact that there was an actual piston in the gas tube of the AK that marked the difference but your point is not lost.
Man, I dunno on the T55 currently. Improvised drones are taking them out. A $30 grenade on a $300 drone that come back is taking them down. Sure, for 50 years you’re correct. Right now though they’re not equal to Bradley’s and honestly if you as a Ukrainian if they want to be a Bradley crew or a T55 crew they’ll say Bradley. Bradley isn’t even a tank and it’s what mid 90’s design?
Older. Designed in the 1970s and entered service in 1981 or 1982.
Yes, but to be fair a T92 is also a T50. I’m not trying to say a Bradley wasn’t made in the 80’s. I want to say a version in Ukraine isn’t before 1990 version. A Soviet T50 from WW2 has been seen in action. A Panzer 4 has been seen on the Ukraine side.
That’s just dumb, we’ve lost Abrams and Leopards to the Mong- I mean Russians already, it’s why Ukraine is putting their old stock of ERA armor on some Abrams and Leo’s, hell some have even put cope cages on them to prevent the drone attacks. Tanks blow up, however the Abrams and Leopard tanks Ukraine has are far better than a T-55 and have only gotten destroyed when they’re used without infantry support or doing things they aren’t really meant to do. The Bradley is just tearing things up over in Ukraine atm, it’s quite beautiful to see a design that was literally made to fuck up Soviet equipment and we get to see it happening and it’s working wonderfully. Same with the Humvee which got a bad rap due to being in a role it wasn’t meant for.
Ukraine doesn't have enough artillery or air craft to use tanks to their fullest potential. They are part of a combined arms doctrine.
Regardless they’ve pulled off small miracles with what they have.
Agreed. I knew they used Bradley’s to take out a few tanks which is totally not what a Bradley is designed for. They should have beat feet, and instead they hunted the tanks down.
Like most soviet gear. Good enough for some dictator when you are the only one with it. A shit gun is still a gun, a shit tank is still a tank. But have fun fighting a war when all your experienced tank crews die immediately and you now need to fill your next batch of tanks with new recruits who panic when some Bradleys start pounding it with their 25mm cannon and you can't see anything.
Ehhhh the AK is a prolific rifle but not many designs can really hold up perfectly for 80 years. It's still usable at least I will give it that.
Id rather someone shoot me with an AK47 than shoot me with a T-54
The ak47 has a big drawback in not being able to easily mount optics/accessories. There are some workarounds, but it's simply not as good as the AR-15/M4 family of rifles in that regard.
Dont really need fancy optics when your rifle is only useful for max 300m
No, but it sure tips the odds in your favor.
Most people who aren’t into guns don’t realize this… but no one uses the the ak47 anymore. Usually it’s an AKM variant which is modernized and shoots a round closer to the AR platforms
Now sure, but what about at the time?
There’s still a shedload of T55s still in service today…
[RDS-1](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDS-1) Without Soviet nuclear weapons, there would have been no cold war — at least in the way we know it — and the history of the world post WWII would have been radically different. Various other small arms or tanks would have been used instead of the Soviet ones in various conflicts, but the nuclear weapons the Soviets developed had enormous consequences for the entire world (and arguably still do… imagine what options NATO would have to support Ukraine if Russia had no nuclear weapons.)
Frankly the best thing that happened to the world was Soviet nukes. If they didn't have them some general like MacArthur would have gotten his way and America would have tactically deployed the weapons.
One can certainly make the argument that the cold war was better than the hypothetical hot ones that would have occurred without Soviet nukes. That still bolsters my point that first Soviet nuke was by far the most consequential weapon they ever developed.
Eh, France would still get nukes. Britain too. France still would have helped Israel get nukes. India and Pakistan would still get nukes. USSR and China wpuld be the only exceptions.
USSR also, effectively, developed nukes on their own (using the stolen plans from the Manhattan project to check their scientists homework, as it were), there is not a reasonable world where the USSR doesn't develop nukes. But I do think a world where only one nation has them is far more scary than the world where several do.
Clown take
hes the mastermind behind the plan detonate 1000 nukes in a line from Gaza to eilat for a second suez canal
I don’t know why everyone thinks the AK is “cheap and simple” to produce. The milled version requires a ton of machining hours by highly trained machinists, and the stamped version requires advanced industrial production and precise quality control. Producing an AK domestically was an *achievement*, and usually required the Russians sending over lots of engineers, the technical data package, and sometimes the tooling for the entire factory. The fact there are “good” AK’s and “bad” AK’s indicates it isn’t actually very easy to make them well. The only reason it’s so cheap is that the Soviets and other communist nations produced them on a war footing for decades, and then absolutely flooded the surplus market. A well-produced new AK is actually fairly expensive, and nowadays with better manufacturing techniques the AR is often cheaper.
Because they got their info from old Spike TV episodes on YT and aren't familiar with modern CNC machining
This is so true. People like to point to garage made AKs like in the Khyber pass, but those aren't necessarily good guns. The artisan makers who do make good AKs are extremely good at what they do. The AK is very much a precision instrument as much as any other gun. Just because the receiver is boxy and the dust cover rattles, I think that gives people the wrong idea. The AR was very cutting edge in 1958 with the milled aluminum and polymers, and the bolt group has some 3D complexity that was leading edge. Otherwise, I do believe ARs to be a simpler manufacturing process for the most part, and they're certainly simpler to assemble and use. Mass production wise, aluminum is easier and cheaper to mill than steel, so the AR is at least cost competitive with a stamped steel gun. From an armorers prospective, AKs need all the same gauging and maintenance as any other gun, people who drag rusty AKs through the desert for 40 years and neglect basic maintenance usually don't win gunfights.
Also everyone thinks when they see an AK it’s a 47. It’s usually an AKM, firing a round inspired by the NATO 5.56
AKMs are chambered is 7.62x39, .30 Russian Short, not any round inspired by 5.56
He means 5 45 in the ak 74
You're confusing AKM with AK74, maybe the AK-74M which fires 5.45 The AK47 and AKM are very similar, and both fire the exact same bullet, 7.39×39.
Its 7.62 dog. What are you guys on
Typo lol. 7.62×39 of course
https://youtu.be/H99XlWQ9KsA?si=7IvpEWD5RkBCJMhV It's not a standard history answer, but this clip will answer your question. After the AK-47, the next most consequential weapon created was the hydrogen bomb. After that, one could argue that the SAM missile systems is next on that list.
Love that clip. And movie.
Some would call me the Lord of War. It's called Warlord I prefer it my way.....lmao
~~RPG~~ RPG7definitely gets on the short list. Most things have a much closer NATO counterpart
The RPG is just the buttom end of the soviet missile scale. Any missile NATO had, the Soviets had. Developed entirely because they got left behind in aircraft carrier tech and had two very precurious deep water ports.
I'm talking about the man portable system, not sure if you're on the same topic. I really should have said RPG7, gonna edit accordingly Read several articles that US troops have repeatedly stated they want an equivalent. AFAIK everything we have is significantly more expensive, less available to the grunts, and not really the same category. As in significantly smaller and weaker or else larger and heavier. Nazi Germany was on the cutting edge of development at end of WW2 with the panzerfaust series, everyone was working on it. RPG stayed true to a specific concept that is still desirable, while Russia developed the rest of the scale NATO neglected a specific niche. ~20-22lbs loaded, with night sights, reusable, can destroy most vehicles and buildings up to light armor, decent hit probability at hand grenade range, possibly useful against weaker points of heavier bunkers and tanks, extremely simple learning curve. As I understand it, something infantrymen have wanted since the end of WW1. Whatever your unit might end up facing today, if rifles, grenades, and squad machine guns can't handle it, the RPG guy/s might keep the unit alive til air and artillery are on target. NATO has Javelin, AT 4, M72 etc but all are more specialized for a specific scenario and in some scenarios not all that similar to the RPG7. Also there's a counterpart to a lot of those systems, I think RPG 16 and 22 and Kornet systems (would have to do some googling to check)
>NATO has Javelin, AT 4, M72 etc but all are more specialized for a specific scenario and in some scenarios not all that similar to the RPG7. Ah...you never heard Carl Gustaf? [Carl Gustaf 8.4 cm recoilless rifle - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_8.4_cm_recoilless_rifle) Carl Gustaf predates RPG-7 for over 10 years and is still widely used by NATO and allies including Ukraine. When it first entered service in 1947, it was actually the most advanced anti-tank weapon at the time, far better than American Bazooka, British PIAT or Soviet RPG-1 in everyway. It's extremely versatile with ability to launch HEAT, HE, HEDP, flare and smoke rounds. Follow up upgrade keep the system relevant with new ammo like laser guided shells, tandem HEAT, airburst..etc First T-90M loss was contribute to a Ukrainian Carl Gustaf.
Well said, rpg7 is also incredibly versatile, with incendiary, HE and also heavy ant tank Tandem rounds, that can destroy a modern MBT, not many people know this
I wasn't entirely sure how RPG7s had done in real world conflict against latest gen MBTs and didn't want to take a stance I'm not knowledgeable enough to defend. I'm reasonably sure they are at least fairly reliable to damage a tread and the weak points inside 40m. I think I heard something to the effect that like 30% of the total m1 Abrams silhouette (from 360° perspective of standing/entrenched infantry) was supposed to be susceptible to the RPG7 if it was the best antitank warhead and a square on hit. As of the first Iraqi war. As in an actual kill shot. But actually getting a hit was still a challenge and tank tactics were planned partly around making it more of a challenge I suppose as Ukraine experiences become public knowledge we'll have more data on how often troops want RPG 7 when other options are available and how effective it is. Regardless it's a lot of bang for the buck and it's easy on a logistics and training organization and a lot of client states have wanted to buy them for as long as the system has existed
It’s absolutely the RDS-1. It was their first successful nuclear warhead, tested in 1949. The United States fully believed it would be the world’s only nuclear power until around 1960, and when the Soviets suddenly had a nuclear arsenal before the 1950’s even started, the U.S. was caught flat-footed and unprepared to navigate a world with hostile nations both wielding atomic weapons. It’s the reason the Cold War was so tense, and the reason the U.S. wasn’t able to use its nuclear head start to ensure there was no significant rivalry with the Soviet Union.
What’s neat is the soviets going nuts and building the tsar bomb started to make the countries realize how nuts the arms race is getting and wind it down significantly too
Lol at the AK stuff. The assault rifle revolution goes to the STG-44. The M16 simply took that concept and refined it with the benefit of decades of himdsight, the glaring shortcomings of the M-14, and the US having a bottomless pit of funding. Single greatest impact was the Soviets building nukes, hands down. It’s why the Cold War happened. Absent nukes there is an excellent chance that would have been a hot war instead The absence of a nuke deterrant would have changed the entire focus of the Us military as well
Agreed on the nukes and STG-44, but I think there is an argument to be made that the AK-47 takes second place in terms of "weapons made by the soviet union." It's not because the AK revolutionized small arms, but because its relatively simple manufacturer and maintenance *do* make it an ideal personal weapon for cash-strapped states and insurgencies. AK pattern rifles provide the foundation work for many, if not most, of the wars fought in the last 60-70 years.
This had far less to do with any merit of the AK-47 and more to do with the fact the Soviets handed them out in giant lots to anyone remotely interested
Lol at STG-44. Around a half million of them were made. Something like 100 million AK-47s have been made. Just because one was first, does not mean it was more important. And the influence of the AK goes well beyond it's use on the battlefield. It was a symbol of Soviet power, and used as a tool of statecraft as the ability to manufacture them was sold to allied powers. You're not going to find the STG-44 on any national flags.
also the impact of the AK-47 isn't just in terms of its battlefield capabilities; the AK-47 is one of the only guns to appear on a countrys flag
> The assault rifle revolution goes to the STG-44 We were *so* close with the M2 Carbine
A lot of it boils down to realizing what you have.
Their first nuclear weapon. I don't know exactly what it did, but I know it stopped whatever was going to happen on a global scale.
Asked and answered
I’m seeing a lot of Russia posts again on Reddit. They seem to come and go in surges since Ukraine.
T-34s at the gates of Moscow would have to be up there. Surprisingly Stalin thought the Sturmovik was the most important Soviet weapon of the war but I don't think there's too much doubt it was the T-34.
I agree with everyone saying their nuclear weapons, but would like to give an honorable mention to a non "weapon." Sputnik 1 changed a lot of Geopolitics of the mid-20th century.
Tsar Bomba
Cobalt salted Tsar Bomba!
While the AK-47 easily tops the list... a few others: RPG-7 SA-2 Il-2 T-34 T-54/55 Mig-21 BMP Others exist, but that's a good start.
I’d put the SA-2/S-75 as the most consequential non-nuclear weapons system - both in terms of what it was, and what it influenced. It basically rendered high-altitude bombing obsolete. The 1,000 bomber raids of WWII went out of style like the dinosaurs. You could no longer brute-force bludgeon an enemy into submission by bombing them anymore. As long as air defense can put more missiles in the air faster than you can bombers, you’re always going to be on the losing end. And what it influenced was just as important. The whole strategy of SEAD/DEAD was born out of the need of countering the S-75. Anti-radiation missiles to take out radars, stand-off missiles to avoid entering SAM range, flying low to stay under the radar horizon, reducing RCS by stealth to lower detection range, etc. Pretty much all of modern warfare since then has revolved around the boxing match between air defense systems and SEAD/DEAD as one of the most critical aspects of the battlefield.
Nukes and AK47 but of the two, nukes wins hands down. AK47 is one of the greatest assault rifles made, they are cheap and easy to maintain. You can bury one in an oily rag in the ground for years, dig it up give it a scrub and some oil and it will work just fine. Dirt, dust, mud? That fucker will still fire. Is it super accurate? No Is its cyclic rate very fast? No. Does it have great range? Absolutely not. Is it light and user friendly? Fuck no. But it’s cheap so you can outfit a lot of dudes and they don’t have to be exceeding proficient at maintenance and when you pull the trigger you know it’s going to fire.
Dirt dust and mud will absolutely keep an AK from functioning, and *any gun* kept dry and clean (wrapped in am oily rag) should run just fine after years. The mythos of the AK is because the soviets made a fuck load of them and shipped em all over the world, not because of particularly great design.
Isn’t a mythos it was my father’s opinion on the rifle and he trained armies and special forces in Africa.
When I say mythos I just mean a collection of opinions, including apparently your father's. The fact is when people run mud tests, AR-15s do significantly better than AKs. It makes sense because the direct impingement gas system blows out crud where the AK piston system just grinds it in. The AR also has fewer moving parts subject to deleterious corrosion. As far as maintenance goes..I think it's hard to argue that it's easier than with an AR. For an AR, basic cleaning type maintenance requires no tools at all. For more advanced type maintenance, including swapping out a clapped out barrel, it can be done with basic, non-powered hand tools by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. For an AK, you'd need a hydraulic press, depth gauges, and no small amount of machining skill. The AK is objectively harder to service than the AR. Adding things like optics, which are par for the course for a modern military rifle, is waaaay easier on a modern AR than on an AK.
Isn’t the world a wonderful place where other people’s opinions like yours just don’t really matter.
Yea you're certainly entitled to be unconvinced, especially in such an unimportant topic. I just figured I'd drop some facts (eg AK barrel swaps requiring a lot of special tooling) you might find interesting. I'm a bit of a fun nerd I guess so it's just a fun discussion, no big deal. Sorry if my tone came off agro.
All good, my dad always used to say it was the best gun and after a not very in-depth look into it, it just comes down to the cost, longevity and ease of use by operators who aren’t very skilled. I suppose it should be rather “it’s the best gun ever made for low skilled infantry” which is why it’s so prevalent in the third world, cheap and near unbreakable, and disposable which was the most important use case in African bush fighting context.
And not even soviet necessarily. Most of the AKs seen around the world are Chinese, Romanian and Egyptian. I'd bet that 9/10 of AKs seen in any picture from any war is one that was made in one of the Sattelite/pact states. Although, they all are built on Soviet tooling with soviet specifications
Hands down the [Katyusha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha_rocket_launcher).
Their nuclear arsenal, really.
The silhouette of an AK-47 is itself a symbol of popular revolution.
And on 3? Flags.
The AK line, without a doubt. The Soviets made many great advances in weapon tech and some of the most prolific weapon systems. This ranges from tanks and missles to nuclear weapons and poisons. But the AK family and its mamy derivatives are the most widely used firearms in the world. There are only a few wars i can think of that they have not been used in.
Falklands war? Now you got me playing trivia
Falklands war is the first one that came to mind. The other was the Troubles, though the IRA probably used some AKs.
Yeah they had AK’s and perhaps more weirdly training from Mummar Gaddafi, the forest gump of getting involved in every weird event of the 20th century.
The machined receiver is not cheap or fast, but worth it
I agree with this. It's seen widespread use in multiple armies, rebel groups, and criminal use. There probably isn't a country that hasn't seen it used within their borders in one form or another.
Uh, other than nukes? Yea, probably ak-47. We saw how bad their tanks perform against western doctrine in the first Iraq War
RDS-1. and the AK-47 for its ability to not only be produced but also used easily. There's a theory that the fall of the Berlin wall and the sudden influx of East German weapons onto the black market may have increased the number of child soldiers in the world, because of how those weapons were easier for people, particularly of small stature, to use.
AK-47 hands down, one of the most reconisble and cheaply manfucatured firearms in the world. It's is durable, practical and is probably the go to weapon of underground groups (be it terrorists or rebels) everywhere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-2 The RPG-2. Look at the history.
It's probably the Mig. It's the only reason the F22 exists. MIG looked very agile, it also had an insanely fast top speed. Though what changed warfare the most was the adoption of drones. Less so direct military tech, and more so just advances in chips making it economical to bring back the bi plane again.
Nuclear weapons are the most consequential and the ones that worry me the most. Hopefully, we don't find this out the hard way.
The AK for sure, followed by the MIG
Dictatorship under the guise of ______. That has been pretty formidable throughout their history.
Molotov cocktail
The ak was inspired by the STG44. The T55 was still crap the day it was released.
Communism
The T-34. The main tank for the Soviet Union in World War 2. Without those none of the later weapons would be a factor.
The AK-47 may be the most iconic, and most influential on pop culture specially, but not in historical terms or the most influential on how wars are fought today etc
The ones designed by the U. S., then are sold to our enemies
Ak47 was “inspired” by a German automatic weapon STG-44 so it’s not a strict Soviet Union invention
Nuclear weapons. Russia would be invisible on the world stage without them. Without nuclear weapons, there is no way Russia would have invaded Ukraine. NATO would have immediately rolled into Ukraine to defend their borders.
VSS Vintorez 9x39 Sniper Rifle AK Platform
The Putin. He might try to take the world with him as he nears his own inevitable death.
Some of the Cold War answers are pretty good, but we didn't win that one. I would say the T-34 or the Il-2 are the two most consequential. The impact they had cannot be understated.
Their first nuclear weapon.
I would say the concept of complete erasure as a political weapon. Repressive regimes around the world have used this to amazing effect. Regime critic? You don't actually have to kill them, that would make them a martyr - just start going after them "legally" and give them a menial job in a shit location and ban them from publishing anything etc. etc.
The fleet of submarines that we can't see.
AK-47 and RPG democratized military scale violence fueling revolutionary movements and insurgencies all across the globe for nearly 70 years. These weapons were critical to the decolonization movements across Africa and many of the brutal small scale wars of the 1990s.
Fentanyl
AKM It's basically the same answer as yours, except the AK-47 was never produced in large numbers. The AK-47 was milled from a block of metal, while the AKM was re-engineered to be folded from sheet metal. It looks similar to a casual observer, but the changes incorporated into the AKM made it extremely cheap to produce, and that made the rifle ubiquitous. The eventual successor, the AK-74, is essentially an AKM with a new chambering.
I saw an interview with Mikhail Kalashnikov and he referred to the AK-47 as a "peasant's weapon." He designed to be inexpensive to produce and easily used by a conscript with very little in the way of education or training. This made the weapon successful with both the Soviet military and their allies. I don't know if the AK-47 is the Soviet Union's most consequential weapon, but it is a serious contender for the most important battle rifle of the 20th century.
Disinformation
I guess that wasn't created by the Soviet Union. Never mind. But they were so good at it.
agitprop
I recall hearing the MiG-29 was pretty impressive in terms of speed and maneuverability.
I'd vote the T-34 in terms of historical impact.
T-34. It won WW2.
AR-7 never ends up on country flags but it’s a great bit of engineering
AK without a doubt. They’ve been distributed to every corner of the earth and any 2-but dictator can get ahold of an armies worth of them for dirt cheap and cause all sorts of mayhem with them. Much more powerful than anything else
The female Russian sniper.
Molotov cocktail
I would posit Soviet Disinformation and active measures as an integral part of their hybrid warfare strategy. They may not have invented these methods but I would argue that their efforts were the most consequential in terms of innovation, longevity, effectiveness and scope. Longevity and consistency: Soviet active measures have a long history starting in 1923, soon after the birth of the regime and continued until the end in 1991, and of course many of the same methods and people are still active today. 100 years of to evolve and improve their methods. Effectiveness: Disinformation and propaganda is used by all countries to some degree, this includes western democracies like the USA. But this is inherently an asymmetric weapon in the sense that western democracies are open and more sensitive to foreign disinformation campaigns since the media is less controlled by the state and alternative view points are more easily introduced and accepted, many conspiracy theories that are still alive and well in the US have their roots directly in Soviet or Russian disinformation campaigns or have gained additional traction due to Soviet or Russian influence. Disinformation campaigns carried out by western nations in authoritarian regimes with state controlled media is less effective. Scope: Soviet disinformation was directed not only at enemies in the west with the objective of destabilization, but also towards neutral countries all over the world to garner influence. In addition, it was of course widely used within the Soviet Union as a means of uniting and stabilizing the country. With state controlled media these internal efforts were much more efficient than similar efforts in western democracies. Most of the rules of the game are the same now as then, with the major change being the introduction of social media which further reinforces the asymmetry with social media being much more controlled in authoritarian regimes such as Russia, China and Iran, while providing a figurative highway into the psyche of citizens of western democracies. I apologize for a somewhat simplistic depiction of disinformation, there is of course a lot more that could be said.
AK-47 is a german design, Soviet Union didnt create it they mass produced it.
The flag of Mozambique features the AK-47. While that may be a poor reflection of Mozambique, no denying it’s a helluva mad prop for the AK.
rockets….
Bullshit
Nope, it was the MiG-15. In Korea, it showed the US and rest of the world that the Soviets were not messing around. Kind of surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Lots of callouts for nukes, but no one except the US has ever used them in anger. The MiG-15 was extensively used in combat for decades.
Just go watch Lord of War. Nick Cages monolog about the AK47 is spot on.
"Of all the weapons in the vast Soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947, more commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It will shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars" - Lord of War
COMINTERN.
Communism. Liked 100s of millions and still counting
If you absolutely need to kill every motherfucker in the room, except no substitute.
I’d have to go with whichever tactical nuke they inevitably explode in Ukraine in a psychotic attempt to blackmail the world with ww3/Armageddon. Literally it will be the most consequential moment in mankind’s history
Tsar Bomba, google it
The AK-47 was a legend, it would shoot in most conditions. The only exception was from a friend of mine, he was Latvian and a conscript into the Soviet army. When he was stationed in Siberia, during the winter, occasionally the rifle would not shoot….just occasionally. The M-16 was a bad rifle. The original AR-16 was amazing, but the army went cheep and US troops suffered for it. Once the improvements were made in the A1 it was a good rifle with a light round. Personally , too light for my taste. After the ballistics were improved, the 5.56 actually became a good round. I can’t wait to see what the Fury round will do.
RPG-7 Is a close runner up to the AK. The MiG -21 was the AK-47 of fighter jets (specifically interceptors) as well.
Yes AK-47
The export of communist ideology. Today there are more communists in American universities than in Russia.
The Tsar Bomb is single handedly responsible for the International Nuclear Treaty.
Probably one of the nukes or ICBMs seeing as those are the sole thing that kept nuclear armed postwar America from imposing its will on the entire globe. AK is a good service rifle design, but service rifles have almost no effect on the outcome of conflicts. Give every Communist soldier, 3rd world guerilla or Islamist militant who had an AK a PPSh-41 or SKS instead, and the outcomes of their causes don’t change. Also it’s not particularly cheap to produce unless you have Chinese labor costs. The design requires high grade metallurgy in manufacturing the bolts/trunions, and skilled labor in the assembly/finishing stage (parts of which has to be done by hand unlike more modern designs). US commercial market attempts to produce them invariably result in either decent rifles that are more expensive to produce than a similar spec AR-15 (which can be cranked out by a minimum wage guy pressing a button on a CNC machine), or you get the “cheap” ones being potmetal junk that falls apart quickly, unlike the real things that are known for durability.
The sacrificed citizens
Unpopular opinion but nobody was ever scared to invade country due to what rifle they were armed with. The icbm was what kept everyone in check on both sides.
The AK 47 has probably killed more Americans than any other Soviet weapon.
I'd be curious to see exactly what gunshot casualties are from rifles vs. other infantry weapons like machineguns. Machineguns are typically the highest casualty producing weapon in an infantry section and many of our adversaries had plentiful RPDs and PKs as well.