Should i sleep or should i watch a soviet infantry training video? "Yeah this information is totally something i need to know"

@decioczt1

Жыл бұрын

Tu deve comer ou ir tomar banho, a decisão é sua de mais ninguém.

@andrewmiller5794

Ай бұрын

The AK is calling to you

Today I learned I need to be shirt-free when cleaning my Kalishnikov. Also, soviet screen wipes are interesting.

@nottherealpaulsmith

6 ай бұрын

"In order to strip your gun, you must first strip yourself." -Russian Sun Tzu

As someone who works on AKs for a living, these old Soviet training films are interesting to watch. Training on these rifles has changed much since the 1950s/1960s. For example; chicken-winging the arms when shooting, only using the sling for carrying the rifle only, and only manipulating the rifle with the right hand only.

@PeriscopeFilm

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the insightful comment. Please subscribe or consider becoming a channel member.

@americanmilitiaman88

Жыл бұрын

What company?

@echo5delta

Жыл бұрын

Could you imagine the world if Kalashnikov had been killed in WW2? I wonder how different things would be without the AK series.

@Mansur256

Жыл бұрын

@@echo5delta In one African country AK in their flag

@ajjackson1526

Жыл бұрын

@@Mansur256 I only know that because of the movie Lord of war.

These videos are great! I love the old style Documentaries

The weapon of the working class

Спасибо большой! Мне нравится это.

At 10:00 you can see standard Soviet battle drill for the combined arms assault. Tanks in line providing long range fires to destroy heavy weapons and suppress positions, APCs carrying infantry to the limit of their small arms fire but stopping out of range of enemy rockets, and the dismounted infantry squad advancing with walking fire. Its easy to see how, with the coordination of well-timed artillery and smoke, this was expected to get the infantry into the trenches. It was a standardized grand battle-plan for a country of standardized grand planning, and was made out of the lessons of the last war. The trouble would be that the next wars were in the mountains and the cities, and when the army restructured from divisions to lean and fast battalions. This latest war in Ukraine has defensive anti-tank weapons and lethality the grand planners couldn't dream of and not enough logistical support to sustain the speed those early battalion tactical groups could sprint at.

@Rokaize

Жыл бұрын

Yup. Stuff like this worked really well in ww2 against Germany. And against Japan after Germany surrendered. It has a proven track record. But the army fighting ww2 and the army fighting ukraine are 2 different armies.

@berryreading4809

Жыл бұрын

Especially because alot of the people fighting against Germany in WW2 weren't even from what is now Russia... Ukraine did plenty of the fighting and plenty of the suffering, along with genocide by nazis not just Stalin...(along with many other post Soviet states, although rarely to the same extent) Yet today Russia loves claiming they did everything singlehandedly with modern Russian border born soldiers in WW2... Only recognizing sacrifices made by current puppet states like Belarus... Even then Belarusian involvement isn't exemplified like Russia is, even though they fought and suffered horribly and also had mass genocide (I'm talking about the Nazi genocides, not Stalin's BTW)... From my understanding many of the large city born now Russian state citizens were mobilized far less than other regions or territories... Much like in today's Russian invasion and war against Ukraine 🤨 So much for communism meaning equality 🙄 Meanwhile as Russia currently and proudly brings back the hammer and sickle that flew over some of the darkest days of eradication of one's population by it's own leadership 😒 😵‍💫

What's really interesting to me was how burst fire was emphasized, rather than single shots. I'm reminded of how some say that the AK was originally intended to be used as a submachine gun.

@NikovK

Жыл бұрын

It very much was. They had all submachine-gun equipped platoons and companies in WWII much as American forces had ubiquitous semi-automatic rifles. We wanted a fully-automatic Garand and they wanted a longer-ranged PPSh. Both required scaling down or up the cartridge.

@petesheppard1709

Жыл бұрын

@@NikovK Great point about scaling! Pity it took the US so long to finally get it right.

@fleebogazeezig6642

Жыл бұрын

Iirc the plan was originally for the new 7.62x39mm cartridge to be consolidated into 3 different weapons, the RPD as a machine gun, the SKS as the standard infantry rifle, and the AK-47 as the “submachine gun”, however the AK was found to also be able to take the role as the standard infantry rifle, so it replaced the SKS.

@petesheppard1709

Жыл бұрын

@@fleebogazeezig6642 That was indeed my understanding as well.

As an AK builder I admire this old film. 😁

Note the AK in this film has the waffle magazine which was used by the Soviet Army in the 1950s and 60s.

@marcinossowski3212

5 ай бұрын

They were manufactured between 1961 and 1963 :)

I had no idea that the Soviets had suppressors for their Kalashnikovs in the '60s. The profile of that red army suppressor is used by the modern Dead Air brand Wolverine AK suppressor today, but for the longest time I thought that the USSR didn't adopt suppressors until the Afghan war and that the design was a little newer than that.

we are still taught the going prone technique in high schools over here in vietnam

@andrewmiller5794

Ай бұрын

Bro its over yall won. Speaking for america we arent going back anytime soon yall can stop digging tunnels, please!....its unhealthy😂

It's interesting to note that the AK rifles were still used like a submachine gun during this time period. Old Soviet doctrine.

Great days comrades.

Who else was surprised to learn Liev Schreiber's uncle was a Russian Sergeant?

Nice time travel ! Thanks a lot ! 👍 bol'shoye spasibo druz'ya !!

I have the AK 103. The AK not being accurate is a myth. With proper marksmanship fundamentals and quality ammunition it is very accurate for its intended purpose

@Kyuschi

Жыл бұрын

having actually been maintained also helps.

@NikovK

Жыл бұрын

Semi-automatic fire should render it as accurate as any other platform out to normal combat ranges in the hands of normal infantrymen. They all hit man-sized targets in capable hands to the limit of the human eye, particularly if that target doesn't want to be seen.

This film shows the AKM rather than the AK-47. At about @11:10 the narrator refers to the "modernized Kalashnikov" along with the RPK.

@zheka1780

Жыл бұрын

An AKM has a muzzle brake

@richardjames1812

Жыл бұрын

The first AK was a stamped receiver, which didn't work, then it was modernized with a milled received. Later, they figured out how to make the stamped receiver work (AKM). This film is showing he improved AK-47 with stamped receiver.

I was hoping the teenage girl, who shows up around the 9-minute mark, would get to try an AK.

@webtoedman

Жыл бұрын

Or join in the shirtless rifle cleaning?

@1lovesoni

Жыл бұрын

​@webtoedman NO, I can't agree with sexualizing a literal child. I just wanted her to shoot.

@andrewmiller5794

Ай бұрын

​@@webtoedman Stop. Your letting the intrusive thoughts win!!!😂

Damn, the Soviets were really cranking out a lot of full auto fire! Not much time spent on aimed single shots.

@geoechidna

11 ай бұрын

The AK was doctrinally considered an SMG for many decades. Even today full-auto fire is often encouraged with the AK in Russia.

8:29 Artie Lange shows up

How about an "AAARRRGGGHHH" for the Pirates Union???

My best ak is the ak 74

А почему крышка ствольной коробки с ребрами жёсткости,как у АКМ?

@1903tx

Жыл бұрын

The rifles in this vid likely are AKMs.

Ahuitelino🦗

I would have gone with Nevsky @ 13:00, nuck better music to get sluggard by.

No translation?

VAN "KIENG"BANDA

Три патрона вот и вся огневая подготовка

Could use subtitles.

@lightdark00

Жыл бұрын

почему?

@NikovK

Жыл бұрын

You can auto-generate a Russian-to-English translation. I'm glad they're uploading nearly the raw film.

@PeriscopeFilm

Жыл бұрын

Read our description for info on how to auto generate.

@petesheppard1709

Жыл бұрын

@@PeriscopeFilm Thank you! The video was fascinating even without English captions.

Subtitles! Lol

@lightdark00

Жыл бұрын

Почему?

Why no subtitles??

2:50 EXTREMELY optimistic for a 100-300m rifle. 3:35 They're shooting AKs at jets 😆🤣😆🤣

@NikovK

Жыл бұрын

Quantity is its own quality comrade. Besides, a jet engine is vulnerable and fragile enough in the modern un-armored airplane designs that one .30 caliber bullet getting sucked through the turbines will do significant damage, even if only for post-mission maintenance hours. Firing back is also better for morale than feeling helpless.

@eddietat95

Жыл бұрын

@@NikovK 1. You have more of a chance of winning the lottery AND getting struck by lightning than hitting a small, roughly 7ft x 3ft target (the F-16 intake size, as an example) moving at jet aircraft speeds some hundreds of meters above you with a puny AK. 2. Firing back wastes ammunition and reveals in real-time the ground troop positions to the enemy. Better to run, hide, and radio for help.

@NikovK

Жыл бұрын

@@eddietat95 This is a 1960's training video. The aircraft fired upon would be the likes of an A-4 or other subsonic attack jet or helicopter. During ground attack runs or while looking for targets, these aircraft are travelling at much more ordinary speeds, and when head-on or flying away lead becomes far less difficult. It is not even a matter of hitting the air intake or any particularly vulnerable spot. ANY spot on jet aircraft of the era was an unarmored sheet of aluminum surrounding hundreds of systems from the engine itself to fuel tanks, pressurized air bottles, rubber or steel pipes and hoses, hundreds of yards of electrical wiring and radar, avionics, batteries, oxygen bottles and ammunition feed trays. Putting a bullet into any of these systems can cause the pilot to abort his mission, end an attack early, or lose his aircraft due to a later failure, fire or fault when landing. Even if the aircraft returns to its airfield, ground crews will require new parts and man-hours to inspect and repair even purely cosmetic damage. A wiser man than we was quoted as saying modern air power is a lightning bolt from an eggshell tethered to an airfield, and the 'eggshell' is a deliberate choice of words. Furthermore, although I cannot source the quote, I read a letter in the Dayton OH Air Force Museum in their Korean War exhibit written from an attack aircraft pilot who cursed that the enemy had 57mm, 40mm, 23mm, 14.5mm, and 12.7mm, but some SOB with a rifle had brought him down. I think you underestimate the sheer volume of fire infantry platoons or companies can throw at low-flying aircraft. Training materials for American infantry call for the same massed ground fire against attack helicopters or low-flying aircraft using only the unit's machine guns. This isn't because the infantry rifle was useless, its because ground attack aircraft began adopting armor schemes like the titanium bathtub of the A-10 or Mi-24 to protect pilots and core avionics. These armor schemes aren't proof against dedicated anti-aircraft weapons, only ground fire. It follows that ground fire is enough of a threat to these aircraft to justify armoring against it even at the significant cost of aircraft weight, ergo it was always effective, even if only accurate through volume and chance. If thirty men each make a long burst of ten shots, that's a total of three hundred bullets. Over the course of a few sorties and passing over a few dozen platoons, an aircraft will catch a few bullet holes unless the pilot goes to higher altitudes, fires and breaks off from greater distances, and generally reduces his effectiveness at finding and engaging ground targets. That is the point of all anti-aircraft fire. Besides, have you ever considered how many expensive and expertly aimed 88mm FlaK rounds missed the B-17 at 30,000 feet, a distance at which the bomber formations kept changing course and altitude to dodge the barrage patterns, and now you are claiming it is impractical to shoot rifles at 1,500 feet or less? Against a pilot who will be oblivious unless tracer gets mixed in? Small arms ground fire is a real threat and has been since the dawn of aviation.

@eddietat95

Жыл бұрын

@@NikovK 1. The video doesn't show a helicopter, it clearly shows a generic tactical jet. Of course helicopters can be brought down by small arms fire, but that's not what the video shows and therefore not relevant. 2. "During ground attack runs or while looking for targets, these aircraft are travelling at much more ordinary speeds." That's incorrect. Attack aircraft and attack doctrine of the time (at least for the West) focused on avoiding spending time in slower speeds and low altitude given the threat of heavy arms (actual dedicated AA guns, not puny AKs) as opposed to more common, safer, routine, higher speed strafes and bombing runs. 3. No one is claiming that a rifle bullet won't damage a jet aircraft. Jet aircraft are fragile, it's plainly obvious. However, the question I propose is how LIKELY it is for said bullet to hit an airborne jet aircraft. 4. The Korean War happened between 1950 and 1953. This video was shot in the 1960s. Thanks to heightened Cold War development of jet aircraft, those aircraft of the Korean War were nowhere near as fast and the pilots nowhere near as trained as those of the upcoming Vietnam War of the '60s, no offense to the serviceman quoted in the exhibit letter (his actions were heroic, no question about that). In fact, I suspect the "rifle" said pilot claimed to have shot down his aircraft was actually a machine gun or perhaps a 7.62x54mmR Mosin-Nagant rifle - much more common during the Korean War. 5. Not sure if you're referencing the US military manual "Small Arms Defense Against Air Attack" (Training Circular No. 23-44) but it is probably THE authority when it comes to this topic. You are correct to suggest that voluminous fire with all weapons is effective (and recommended) for attack helicopters and that fixed-wing aircraft are reserved to the unit's machine guns. However, it is important to note that not all small arms East or West are built equal. The AK is just one part of the Warsaw Pact squad's weapons and, when it comes to defense against aircraft, the AK is the LEAST effective of all of them. First of all, the AK was designed with a caliber, barrel length, and magazine capacity to dominate the 100m-300m realm along with the RPD. 7.62x39mm out of a 16-inch barrel will give you an effective range of 300m max for a group of average-trained Warsaw Pact regular infantry for common ground targets. The AK's bullet can actually travel up to 1500m, however, it's trajectory becomes so convoluted and it's kinetic energy so degraded past 500m that it becomes plainly obvious to anyone with knowledge of basic firearms ballistics (i.e. Ian McCollum of ForgottenWeapons KZread channel fame - highly recommended) that using this against a fast-flying airborne target beyond 300m is wishful thinking. The much more appropriate choice for air defense (although, of course, they are all pretty bad compared to a real, dedicated AA gun) in the Warsaw Pact's squad inventory is clearly the 7.62x54mmR machine guns (i.e. the SGM, the RP-46) which fire a much longer ranged round that can actually reach 1000m effectively. These are the guns that actually have taken down jet-powered aircraft successfully. Second, the uselessness of the AK in this realm is especially apparent when you consider that the AK and the video itself is meant for a basic soldier with basic marksmanship training and not some competition shooter or special forces. If they are anything like the current Russian Army, they will have trouble hitting stationary human sized targets beyond 100m with an AK because they are typically not trained enough to do so because their job does not call for that. The designated marksman with an SVD takes care of that task for them. Now ask those regular infantry to shoot at a moving 100m target with an AK. Air defense does not require nor assume aimed shots necessarily - it's mostly suppressive fire - but SOME advanced proficiency is needed and, given the wide range of skillsets needed for the average infantry to learn in a limited amount of time with limited resources, it is beyond wishful thinking to assume that their few hour course in air defense with an AK will do any good when their basic marksmanship is no good as well. Third, even if the entire squad fired upon this airborne target with everything they had, is that really an effective use of their precious infantrymen's weapons and ammunition and lives? Like I said in my last reply, shooting at them reveals the position of ground troops which the enemy aircraft can either use as a reference point to target and use ordinance or radio in for other friendly forces to deal with. Radioing for help if available is even better. Even if there is no help, scattering and running to cover would make it much more difficult for one or so aircraft to hunt and kill all of them. It seemed to work for some who were escaping drone strikes in A-stan. Conserving ammunition for troops sent by the aircraft's tip off would also make more sense than firing in the air and hoping for a miracle shot. 6. Even subsonic tactical jet-powered aircraft are incredibly difficult to hit depending on speed and altitude, even with dedicated AA weapons, MUCH LESS an AK. If the A-4 you mentioned is at cruising speed directly overhead (like the graphic in 3:35 seems to suggest), absolutely no way. We're talking 400+ knots. Good luck acquiring let alone hitting anything with an AK moving at even 300 knots. 7. Nobody claimed that small arms fire is an irrelevant threat in aviation. Somebody **ahem**, however, did claim that the AK firing 7.62x39mm is irrelevant specifically for airborne fixed-wing tactical jet aircraft represented in 3:35.

@NikovK

Жыл бұрын

@@eddietat95 You acknowledge a 7.62x39mm ball can damage an aircraft if it hits it. We both agree hitting it is quite difficult and unlikely. You propose the aircraft hit in Korea was struck by a bolt action rifle cartridge and not a submachine gun (7.62x25 Tokarev PPShs) or AK, but I consider that beside the point. It was to demonstrate ground fire can down an aircraft, and if you think ground fire from a bolt action rifle did the job, then ground fire from an automatic rifle is much more likely to succeed. My only intention is to make it clear that it is not absurd to attempt to fire back on the attack aircraft of the era. If only through the number of weapons firing at attack aircraft making a run (the soldiers are drilled to fire from a prone position of relative cover, so they appear to be returning fire on aircraft directly troubling them or an adjacent unit, rather a target cruising by at altitude) eventually some soldier will win the roulette table. And that's all I'm saying. Not that I would make the shot, or that the AK is a great anti-aircraft weapon, but that I wouldn't want to be in an aluminum kerosene tank fly low and slow over a few hundred automatic rifles trying to win the lottery, because statistics will catch up to me. That risk of from ground fire makes attack aircraft operate faster and higher, reducing their effectiveness against mere infantry and and pushing them up into altitudes were other defenses can acquire them from further away.

This was shot in 2022.

These old RuZZian films are very valuable and up to date for the _"Modern AFOR,"_ because they're still using the same old tired dusty/rusty weapons. Save all the money for building Dachas and Yachts.

Ukraine is ahead of us! No, wait. That's not what I meant.

These tactics are how you lose 27 million in combat against a country the size of Wisconsin.

@truggvi5346

Жыл бұрын

Это где такое было?

@Kyuschi

Жыл бұрын

apart from the extremely outdated bit about shooting at planes, none of this video is about tactics, it's entirely manual of arms.

@guns_aholic

Жыл бұрын

Эксперт который сам ничего не держал тяжелее чем член во рту высрался лол.

This same gear, now all rusty and broken, is being issued to conscripts in the Russian army. "Is just as good as it was in 1945, Comrad Private, there will be no complaining in the ranks. Now, enjoy your hardtack and pemmican. Is also from 1945!"

@1903tx

Жыл бұрын

These days the Russian army is using the AK-12 chambered in 5.45 x 39mm. AKMs and especially AK-47s haven't been used in frontline service for many decades.

@NikovK

Жыл бұрын

@@1903tx People forget in the .223 versus .30 caliber nonsense debate that the Russians adopted their own version of the small bore, high-velocity cartridge soon after we introduced the concept to the Communist world in Vietnam. Less bullet = more bullets.

@truggvi5346

Жыл бұрын

Интересно ты глаза закрыл.

@guns_aholic

Жыл бұрын

Пиздец чё ты несёшь даун