In the last article, we looked at a whole arsenal of submachine guns, right up to the original Australian Owen. But many very original images of PP were also offered by Soviet designers. Moreover, being in rather cramped conditions for creative activity for a number of reasons, they created designs that were much ahead of similar developments in the West, one might say - by whole decades. But let's start with the difficulties. The main one was that in Tsarist Russia, and then in the USSR, the optimal pistol cartridge was not developed, suitable for both pistols and submachine guns. In fact, unlike foreign designers, we could use only two cartridges: Mauser (7, 63-mm) and Parabellum (9-mm). And the latter is purely nominal. Since the Mauser one was "dearer" to us, as it was suitable for barrels of 7, 62-mm caliber. But one of the main tasks of the Russian army has always been to achieve precisely the unification of all calibers of small arms. A rifle, an easel machine gun and a light machine gun, a pistol and a submachine gun - all these types of weapons in the Red Army had the same caliber. And in some ways it was even very good, but in others it was not very good.
That is why, when in 1940 a new submachine gun was chosen based on the experience of the Soviet-Finnish war, all the samples presented to it were designed specifically for a pistol cartridge of 7, 62-mm caliber, and no one even stuttered about the 9-mm caliber.
Submachine gun OKB-15. Left view.
One of the samples presented to it was called OKB-15, and was the development of KB B. G. Shpitalny. And for some reason in the documents it was called "an infantry machine gun of caliber 7, 62", although it is clear that this is a real submachine gun. Interestingly, it was proposed to use it not only in the infantry, but also as aircraft weapons, cavalrymen, paratroopers, tankmen and border guards, although it was obvious that it was clearly too heavy for tankers, paratroopers and border guards.
Comparing it with PPD and PPSh (future PPSh-41), one should immediately note the great originality of its design. Usually, all PPs of that time had an automation that worked on the recoil of a free shutter, but here Shpitalny also invented the removal of powder gases through a hole made in the wall of the barrel. That is, the bolt in it received two shocks, and besides, some of the powder gases were diverted into the receiver. It was also unusual that the cartridge was fed from disk magazines with a capacity of 97 or 100 cartridges 7, 62 × 25 mm. Although the designer has provided for the ability to use magazines from the PPD for 71 rounds.
Externally, the Shpitalny submachine gun looked quite traditional: a walnut split stock, a perforated barrel casing, a sector sight and a provided rail for an optical sight as well.
Why was such an unusual principle of automation used? Let's just say: based on the experience of the "Winter War", the designer decided to increase the reliability of the weapon due to its … "self-heating". No wonder, in the explanation to him it was written that he does not need lubrication and is not afraid of temperature fluctuations. Let's remember that about the same was written in the manual for the M-16 rifle, they say, the gases clean it themselves! It was also noted that due to the longer barrel length than other samples, the OKB-15 has a higher muzzle velocity,and therefore it has a large sighting range, and that is why an optical sight was provided for it.
The weight of the new PP itself was small: 3.890 kg, but with a magazine for 100 rounds, it was no longer easy to call it. The firing range was indicated at 1000 m. And this was a very good indicator, although it is unlikely that such a range was needed specifically for the submachine gun. The rate of fire was 600-800 rds / min.
Tests of all samples were carried out in the second half of November 1940 at the NIPSVO KA in the village of Shchurovo, Moscow Region.
Let's compare all the results. The commission that conducted the tests concluded that the PPD compared to the PPSh and OKB-15 is shorter and lighter.
PPD and PPSh have fewer parts and are less metal-consuming.
The OKB-15 has a higher muzzle velocity, muzzle energy and rate of fire.
In terms of the accuracy of the battle at distances of 100 and 150 meters, the PPD and PPSh showed the same results, but OKB-15 had an advantage over them at a distance of 50 and 200 meters.
The survivability of the PPD and PPSh (three and two breakdowns) also turned out to be approximately the same, but at OKB-15, the store was more heavily contaminated with powder carbon deposits, and in addition, it had eight breakdowns, one very serious. The PPSh was the fastest to understand, but OKB-15 was the longest.
But the shops at the PPD and PP Shpagin filled 137 seconds, but the experimental OKB-15 store, although it had 97 rounds, only 108. The main conclusion of the commission was that the Shpaginsky PP is lighter, more technological, more convenient to disassemble and assemble. and constructively it turned out to be simpler than all its competitors.
Submachine gun OKB-15. Right view.
According to OKB-15, another remark was made that a strong heat flux emanates from it through the sleeve hole upward, interfering with the observation of the target and aimed shooting. It is not entirely clear here, but did it not interfere with the observation of the target by the stream of hot gases beating upward from the muzzle compensator of the PPSh, clearly visible in … any movie "about the war", where you can see how they shoot from the PPSh. But, apparently, the flow of gases from the sleeve outlet interfered with observation more.
According to the conclusion of the test site on November 30, 1940, the PPSh received a positive recommendation, and instead of the PPD, it was supposed to enter service with the Red Army. The Spitalny infantry machine gun did not pass the tests, but its designer was recommended to modify it, since its technical solutions deserved attention.
The main competitor of Shpagin and Shpitalny was, in general, also a very good model for his time.
But B. G. Shpitalny, having received such a conclusion, was not satisfied with him, but did not go about his direct business, but began to "work in the spirit of the day", that is, to scribble letters to various high authorities with threats against the workers of the landfill, insisting on their criminal prosecution. Apparently the sad experience of Taubin and Kurchevsky went to the advantage of a number of our designers. However, he did not manage to prove anything, and as a result, his OKB-15 never saw the light.
And here again the time has come to remember about technology. Shpitalny's PP, with all its characteristics, was - if I may say so, more versatile than the PPSh and at the same time … more complicated. And the priority of the Soviet industry in those years was, first of all, simplicity and high manufacturability. Had this submachine gun appeared not in our country, but in the United States, with its developed technological base, it would be he who would then have been put into service. And the Germans, who would have captured it as trophies, would have liked it even more than the PPSh.
But this is the modern tuning of the PPSh-41. And - we will note, he and now may well be in a combat formation. The only thing that is needed is to find a niche for its combat use. And there are such niches, and he would be an ideal weapon in them, if not for … logistics! It is easier to supply one set of universal cartridges than to select two or three special-purpose cartridges !!!
It is not entirely clear why, having refused Shpitalny, the military did not try to use his 97-round magazine on the Shpagin submachine gun. Of course, authorship-authorship, but when it came to defending the homeland, paying attention to such a trifle is simply inappropriate. However, for some reason, a new, more capacious store, by the way, and more quickly recharged, was never installed on the new PCB. Well, and then the experience of the war forced him to completely abandon it. By the way, the same experience revealed a number of interesting circumstances, for example, soldiers of many belligerent armies during WWII liked the enemy's weapons more than their own!
Shutter to PPSh-41. The fuse is located on the reload handle and, as it turned out, this was not the best solution.
The Germans, who were neat and pedantic, liked our PPSh, whom they skillfully looked after. They like English STAN for its simplicity and cheapness. But our fighters fell in love with the German MP40. And he fell in love with the lower rate of fire (there was no need to think about the ammunition consumption all the time), and the "stunning" power of his 9-mm bullet. Our 7, 62-mm had excessive penetrating power, especially at close distances, but they did not knock the enemy off their feet. "And I got from German - I got so!" - said many of those who happened to use it. On the other hand, one more amusing detail of the use of the PPSh was revealed: if necessary, holding it by the barrel casing, it could be conveniently used in hand-to-hand combat, like a club, but the bayonet on the short-barreled PPs turned out to be, in general, an unnecessary device.
Shutter to PPSh-41. Bottom side view.
Shutter to PPSh-41. Bottom view. In the front protruding part of the shutter there is a socket for a case head and an extractor tooth. The hole in the tide is to accommodate the return spring.
And, finally, we note that a lot in the creation of new types of weapons depended on the opinion of the soldiers. That is why the distribution of questionnaires to fighters has come into practice, which contained questions about what they like about this or that sample of weapons, what they do not like, and … how they would like to see a kind of "ideal sample". In some countries, this approach has led to interesting results. In particular, it happened in the same Australia. But this will be discussed in our next article.
