Didnt Eugene Stoner experiment with a m1 carbine converted to a small bore, high velocity cartrige (I think it might have been .222 "rem fireball") only to have it catastrophically fail somewhere in the 50's?
M.T.K. did develope the AK without plagiarism. By the logic of the "ak is really stg copy" crowd, you might as well argo that the m14 is a copy of the SVT.
I think the really interesting thing about the M1 Carbine is that it is the first issued example of an arm that has only recently been codified: the PDW. It remains the most widely issued example of it it's type too. It's a rare example of fruitful forward thinking on the part of the Army in that period.
I wonder though, if the war had ended a little earlier and the Soviets hadn't been under fire from the stg, if the Red army would have seen the use of a weapon like the ak as standard issue. We couldv'e seen the a history in which M. K.'s rifle was regejected by the authorities as a "poodle shooter" and him given the same greef as Stoner got, rigged tests, refusal to test the weapon, etc.
I don't think so. Regardless of of the presence of the STG in theater, Russian experience in the dreadful urban combat of the western front would still have greatly recommended the AK 47. The Russians were leaning heavily on their PPSh 41 submachine guns in an "assault rifle" role and they were aware of its short comings when used thus. I'm sure Kalashnikov's design would have yet been eagerly welcomed. Though it's adoption may not have taken place as rapidly as it did and the SKS might have seen more service.
I think Kalashinokov took more inspiration from designs like this:
Seems like rotary bolt passed the long term evolutionary test, so maybe first is it?
I would offer that the German army did indeed alter their tactics when they supplied STGs to front line units. During the trials, they equipped a whole unit with STGs and reduced the number of MG-42s in the make up of the unit. That unit reported enhanced ability to maintain suppressive fire during both advances and retreats. Ian over at Forgotten Weapons relayed that story in more detail in his video comparing the STG-44 and the AK-47. I do think the AK took some cues from the STG, but is an independent design. Similar to how the M-60 took some cues from the MG-42.
What? STG is tillting bolt like an sks!
I have no personal experience with an M-60, but did know a guy who, as a young Marine, carried one in Vietnam. He said it worked well enough, but also drew the attention of people who very much wanted him neutralized. I think eliminating the need to drag MG-34s and 42s around with every unit in sufficient numbers to repel massed Russian attacks is what sped along the development and field trials of the STG-44. If your infantry could produce a withering volume of fire, backed by fewer mgs, it enhanced the mobility of the unit without concern for the clunky, crew served weapons needing support and protection during relocation.
I think that was his point. Dominant bolt lock up is rotating lugs, not tilting bolt thus the STG can't lay claim to its action being the progenitor of subsequent designs. Though it's in good company with the venerable SKS and FAL. Also tilting bolt is the system of choice in machine guns. STG was not the first with that bolt though.
True. The development of the STG-44 and other "assault rifles" did bring changes to the tactics of the armies that fielded them, as did the development of armored fighting vehicles and airplanes. But, each country altered their tactics as their weapons warranted, and the STG would haven't really affected anyone other than Germany, unless you count those who now had to react to the new German tactics.
I understand your point, that soldiers and their commanders adapt to whatever the situation may be simply to survive. However a unit opposing a German platoon equipped with STG 44s will certainly notice a drastic increase of fire coming at them than if the were against a unit armed with KAR 98s and an MG42. Determining the effect of small arms on the battlefield can be tricky, being a small part of the total force projection, yet improvements in small arms firepower cannot be discounted as evidenced by the time and resources spent on their development to this day.