What difference would it have made to the outcome of WW2 if the

>>34999780
entire worl a gommunist

Not much because it was still having production issues being milled instead of stamped. The question would be better to ask if the SKS had been in 5 years earlier, what could've happened..

>>34999780
Communism would still suck, and The allies would still have to give Russia food drops throughout the war.

>>34999794
>what is the svt40

The real question is what if the russians introduced the m43 cartridge five years earlier.

>>34999780
They would have been captured by Germans in ridiculous numbers from the millions of Soviet conscripts surrendering during the initial push into the eastern front.

>>34999823
So germany could have reverse engineerd the AK and ruled the world today?

>>34999780
Not much because Russia needed outside support to supply their lines. A new firearm wouldnt have changed that.

krauts probably would have put them to good use

File: 1450789188004.jpg (152KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 500x750px

>>34999780

None.

Small arms don't influence wars.

>>34999809
Anyone know what the production costs were of the SVT-40 and the SKS? I'd imagine the SKS was cheaper, although by how much I can't really guess. Plus you don't have to make extra mags (you don't really "have" to make extra SVT-40 mags but I think they did). I think your typical illiterate and malnourished russian conscript would be much more deadly with an SKS as opposed to an SVT though.

File: mk05-300x214.jpg (26KB, 300x214px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x214px

>>35001750
normally I'd agree with you, but the differences between your average combloc service rifle of that time (mosin), and an AK47 are HUGE in terms of firepower.

a squad of slavs with these would be pretty fearsome, when you consider what weapons it would go against. No contest.

>>35001783
I have a buddy who is a machinist and I asked him the same question, the SKS would be extremely time consuming to make, only slightly easier than the SVT.

>>35001855
The south Vietnamese at the start of the war were struggling with Garands vs sks/AKM armed gooks.

>>35001678
an infantry rifle isn't going to reverse the course of the war anon

>>35001750
Sadly, this. Much as I love Mikhail's designs.
What the Russians needed were IS2's in volume,and as many Tu-4's as they could make.

>>35001855
yes but you have to consider the advantage, you can kick other ground forces asses more easily.

helps you take some objectives, then an enemy with a real air force and artillery bomb you to shit, armor too.

a better rifle is really for the benefit of the ground forces.

>>35001750
This. Better to ask what would've happened if Bomber Harris was off the leash as soon as the Blitz started.

File: 1500932006206.png (1MB, 1240x869px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1240x869px

>>35001920
>Harris given nukes
Shit would have been wild.

>>35001920
They didn't have the amount of bombers, decent bomb-sights or tactics/experience at that point. One of reasons the London blitz started was becasue Hitler sperged out, when Berlin was hit, the Brits were trying to strategic bomb from the beginning, but they needed to learn their lessons first.

Otherwise:
>le epic meme XD. Praise Kek imarite

>>34999780
They would have a curiosity, because the USSR lacked the industrial capacity to mass produce new models of infantry weapons and intentionally stepped back from self loading infantry rifles to free up industry for more important things.

>>35001920
>>35001940


Germany would still be glowing.

File: 220px-1940_Tula_SVT40.jpg (14KB, 220x171px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x171px

>>35002017
huh, I didn't know that. I mean I knew things were definitely not ideal (some soldiers only were issued ammunition, no rifle), but I thought they quickly overcame those problems. Perhaps this explains why the SVT-40 saw such limited production (relatively speaking) during the war.

>>35001783
>illiterate and malnourished meme

>>34999780
Probably the same thing that happened. Russia wins the war with support from the Allies.

>>35002172
Most were one or the other. Many were both. This is the USSR we're talking about (during wartime).

Nothing really, because it doesn't matter if you have a better gun if your armies get encircled and destroyed due to a lack of adequate leadership.

>>35002084
Anon, 14KB is not the standard

>>34999780
>AK47
No such thing.

>>35002812
Its 1941 not 1925.

>>35002084
They where about to replace the mosin with the self loading SVT-40 but the G*rmans attacked and since they needed time they didn't have to gear up for mass produce and refit their infantry forces with the SVT-40, they said "fuck it, here grandpa rifle" since their industry was already set up for that rifle.

File: 12353453.jpg (118KB, 396x599px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 396x599px

>>35002983

File: 1500742926931.jpg (105KB, 564x752px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 564x752px

>>35001750
>Small arms don't influence wars.
You can't say with a straight face that the advent of a new concept in infantry small arms (like the machinegun, or brass cartridge, or rifled barrels, or interchangable parts) don't have any influence on the outcome of battles or wars.
>2/10 b8 I replied

File: 1503214433821.jpg (40KB, 403x395px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 403x395px

What if we had developed the A-bomb earlier and the jews stole the tech earlier?

>>35001750
You're fucking stupid and so are the ones that posted "this xD"

>>34999780
>Hitler decides against attacking Russia
>Russia stays peaceful with Nazi Germany
>Hitler focuses on England
>Finally break the back of English resistance with numerous bombing campaigns
>Occupy England
>Now have control over nearly the entire continent of Europe
If he was smart he'd stop there and let the continent repopulate, build up the third reich more, re equip and let scientist advance their arms