The RPD was the first belt-fed light machine gun (or squad automatic weapon) developed by the Soviet Union. It was designed in 1944 for the then-new M43 cartridge (7.62x39mm), although wartime exigencies followed by post-war rebuilding prevented it from being issued until the 1950s. It is a fairly light (16b) and quite compact weapon, firing from an open bolt and feeding from a belt carrier that can hold 100 rounds of linked ammunition on two 50-round non-disintegrating metal belts.
The RPD was standard issue for the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact nations only for a short time – by the mid 1960s it was replaced by the RPK (essentially a heavy-barreled AKM). The RPK was lighter and almost entirely parts-compatible with the AKM rifles, and used the same magazines, thus simplifying logistics and supply. This was considered a worthwhile trade for the belt-fed firepower of the RPD. However, the RPD would continue to serve in conflict zones worldwide up to the present day, including Vietnam and many African and Asian small wars.
The RPD I am using in this video is a semiauto conversion made by DSA, with a barrel cut down to 16 inches to replicate a few field-shortened guns used by MAC-SOG commandos in Vietnam. While it looks very cool, I do rather regret not getting the full-length version instead, as the bipod is an important element on the RPD and the shortened bipod is really not practical (so I removed it for the video). DSA will be discontinuing their RPD semiautos at the end of 2016, so if this is the sort of thing you would like to have, I would recommend acting sooner rather than later.
Recent news is that SOCom will be taking bids from US manufacturers to build classic Soviet weapons such as the AK, SVD, PKM, DShK, and KPV to re-supply formerly Soviet-allied countries that prefer to stick with Soviet weapons rather than switching to NATO-spec alternatives.
The RPD is apparently not listed, however, and I wonder if the countries that currently use the RPD are in the process of phasing out that relatively ancient weapon.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/macdill/iconic-russian-ak-47-rifle-might-some-day-be-made-in-usa/2280972
“DShK”
DShK (pattern 1938) XOR DShKM (pattern 1946)? Interesting, I would except rather NSV “Utyos” machine gun
“KPV”
In fact, so far I know, there is no readily available equivalent for this design (i.e. 14.5x114mm belt fed machine gun)
Oh, I found QJG 02G now:
http://world.guns.ru/machine/ch/type-02-qjg-02-hmg-e.html
which is offered for export. Does anyone bought it so far?
That was very cool and looked like a lot of fun. $2,200 for the full length and $2,500 for the one you have makes this another rich persons toy.
THIS WEAPON GAVE THE VIET CON AND THE NORTH VIETNAMESE FORCES COMPARABLE FIREPOWER TO THE M60 AND IT WAS MORE SUPERIOR TO THE M60 IN CERTAIN RESPECTS.
THE SAME WEAPON SAW EXTENSIVE DEPLOYMENT IN THE ISREALI ARAB WARS. THE EFFECT OF THIS WEAPON ON THE BATTLEFIELD CONVINCED THE ZAHAL THAT THEY MUST START THEIR OWN ARMAMENTS INDUSTRY RATHER THAN WAIT FOR THE WEST TO DEVELOPE SOMETHING COMPARABLE.
THOSE WHO WITNESSED THE NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR CAN COMMENT ON ITS EFFECT ON THE NORTHERN AXIS OF THE FEDERAL ADVANCE, THEY CAPTURED ULI AIRPORT AND WENT ON TO SWEEP THROUGH OKIGWE, ONITSHA AND OGUTA WITH EASE. THE FEDERAL FORCES IN THE SOUTHERN AXIS HAD CONSIDERABLE TROUBLE QUELLING THE FEROCIOUS BIAFRAN RESISTANCE. THEY HAD MAINLY SPANISH AND DANISH LIGHT AUTOMATICS AND COMPARABLE HEAVY TYPE INCLUDING THE GERMAN G3.
ONE OF THE REASONS THE SOVIET ARMY DID NOT DO SO WELL IN AGHANISTAN WAS THE LACK OF SUSTAINED FIREPOWER TO CHALLENGE THE FLEETING FIGURES OF THE MUHAJEDIN. RUSSIA LEARNT ITS LESSON WHEN IT WENT FOR THE PERCHENG GPMG. SUSTAINED FIREPOWER FROM THE ISLAMIST INSURGENTS HAD FORCED THE SOVIET HIGH COMMAND TO DO THINGS DIFERENT. THEIR MEN WERE BEING OUTGUNNED IN ALMOST EVERY ENGAGMENT. THIS WAS NOT THE TIME FOR A MAGAZINE FED LIGTH MACHING GUN. MUSLIM FINGERS FIRED THE BELT FED WEAPONS TILL THE BARREL OVERHEATED. SUCH WAS THE INTENSITY OF THE BATTLES THEN. YOU WOULD REALISE THAT THE PERCHENG HAS A SOLID BARREL WHICH MEANS THERE IS NO OPTION TO CHANGE IT IN THE MIDDLE OF BATTLE. THE SPETNAZ ARE TOUGH ENOUGH TO HANDLE ONE AT A TIME FOR CLOSE COMBAT ENGAGEMENT, THE DEADLY ARC OF FIRE IS NOT AS COMPARABLE TO THAT OF THE AMELI OR MG42 BUT IT IS GOOD ENOUGH WITH THE HEAVIER AND NEWER COMBLOC AMMO THAT COULD PERMIT RANGES OF SIX HUNDRED METERS FOR THE AKM AND OVER ONE THOUSAND AND EIGHT HUNDRED FOR THE LMGS AND GPMGS.
THE CUBANS EMPLOYED THIS WEAPON WITH GREAT EFFECT IN ALL THE AFRICAN WARS. THEY WON MOST OF THE ENGAGMENTS INCLUDING FORCING THE SOUTH AFRICAN DEFENCE FORCES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE FRONTLINE STATES. FIDEL CASTRO MONITORED THE BATTLE FROM HAVANA.. REMEMBER THE BATTLE OF HUAMBO. WHEN THE CUBANS STARTED THE AIRLIFT, THEIR PISTON ENGINED TRANSPORTS WERE STAGING FROM ONE POINT TO THE OTHER. THAT WOULD CHANGE WHEN THE SOVIETS REALISED THEY COULD USE THEM FOR THEIR PROXY WARS. PERHAPS THE SOVIETS SHOULD HAVE USED THEM FOR THE AFGHAN VENTURE OF THE LATE SEVENTIES AND EARLY EIGHTIES.
BY THE 1980S, THERE WAS DEFINATELY NO PLACE FOR THE MAGAZINE FED LMG AND GPMG. EVEN THE ISREALI NEGEV ALMG IS BELT FED. THE PRIMACY OFTHE MAGAZINE FED LMGS BELONGED TO THE BORDER BATTLES OF MANCHURIA AND SPAIN BACK IN THE DAY. THE FINNISH WINTER WAS A WATERSHED AND A TURNING POINT.
MANY NATIONS ARE STICKING TO THE SOVIET STYLE WEAPONS EG BULGARIA. THEY HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE DEADLY EFFICACY OF SOVIET/RUSSIAN WEAPONS IN THE COMBAT THEATRES OF THE MIDDLE EAST AND THEY HAVE ALSO MADE NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS OF WESTERN WEAPONS THAT DEGRADE QUITE QUICKLY IN THE FURNACE OF INTENSE COMBAT. AS A WEAPONS ANALYST FOR A GOOD NUMBER OF YEARS, I AM YET TO SEE ANY CONFLICT IN WHICH ANY OF THESE ANCIENT SOVIET WEAPONS HAVE NOT RETAINED THEIR OWN AGAINST MORE SOPHISTICATED WESTERN TYPES. ONE LEBANESE GUERRILA LEADER TOLD ME THAT THE M16 IS GOOD FOR THE RANGE BUT THE AKM IS SUPERB FOR URBAN COMBAT. EVEN THE ISRAELIS ARE USING THE M4 ASSUAULT CARBINE AND THE TAVOR FOR URBAN COMBAT. PERHAPS THE AKSU74 COULD MAKE T HE DIFFERENCE IN URBAN COMBAT.
THE SOVIET MISTAKE NOT TO RETAIN THE RPD FOR FRONTLINE SERVICE COST THEM AFGHANISTAN AND THE FIRST CHECHEN WAR. WITH THE SECOND CHECHEN WAR, ALFA AND SPETNAZ UNITS BEGAN TO PIONEER THE BELT FED GPMGS AND LMGS/UMGS FOR OPERATIONS, SURPRISING THE ISLAMIST REBELS AND FLINGING THEM OUT OF THEIR STRONGHOLDS AFTER ALL WHAT COMPARISON CAN AN LMG MAKE WITH A DETERMINED BELT FED GPMG?
“ONE OF THE REASONS THE SOVIET ARMY DID NOT DO SO WELL IN AGHANISTAN WAS THE LACK OF SUSTAINED FIREPOWER TO CHALLENGE THE FLEETING FIGURES OF THE MUHAJEDIN. RUSSIA LEARNT ITS LESSON WHEN IT WENT FOR THE PERCHENG GPMG.”
Main problem was that 5,45 lacked range when 7,62 were just too heavy for foot slogging soldiers in rough terrain. BTW: This weapon name is Pecheneg.
THIS WEAPON DEFEATED FRENCH IMPERIAL AMBITIONS IN VIETNAM. IT WAS ENCOUNTERED AGAIN IN ALGERIA; IN THE END THE FRENCH HAD TO PULL OUT.
The RPD- or any weapons chambered for 7.62x39mm M43- was not encountered by French forces in Indochina or in Algeria, and the Cubans won very few (any outright?) engagements against the SADF/SWAPOL in South West Africa/Angola.
I’m forgetting the dates of which S’ifrikin incursion it was, that crossed the Kwanza River and reached the southern outskirts of Luanda.
The Soviet boys ran away but the Cubans stayed and repelled the attack.
Whether it was most, or only a few contacts that the Cubans held their own, they earned the respect of the MPLA side in Angola.
IN THE LATTER STAGES OF THE LONG CONFLICT SOME WARSAW PACT WEAPONS IN THE FORM OF THE SKS AMONG OTHERS ENTERED THEIR INVENTORY. MOST OF THE WEAPON CACHES WERE CAPTURED FRENCH IMMEDIATE POST WORLD WAR WEAPONS SUCH AS THE MAS SMG. PROLONGATION OF THE CONFLICT PROVED MORE LETHAL WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE RUSSIAN OR SOVIET 76MM AND THE 130MM FIELD GUNS THAT FAR OUTRANGED WHATEVER HEAVY AMERICAN MADE GUNS THE FRENCH COLONIAL AND METROPOLITAN FORCES HAD AT THE TIME.
GUARANTEED MOST OF THE ENGAGEMENTS WERE MADE WITH SMGS BUT SOME ELITE ELEMENTS OF THE VIETNAMESE HAD BEGUN TO RECEIVED SOME SELF LOADING RIFLES OF SOVIET MAKE. I BELIEVE THESE WERE TOKAREV SVT 40S POSSIBLY THE SVT 40M. THEY WERE NOT QUICK AS THE FRENCH SMGS BUT THEY WERE LETHAL FOR THEY FIRED A HEAVIER INTERMEDIATE ROUND. DEFEAT WAS MADE POSSIBLY NOT BY THE PROLIFERATION OF SMGS BUT THE SOLID COMMITMENT OF HEAVIER FIREPOWERE TO THE NUMEROUS JUNGLE BATTLES. I SUBMIT IT WAS SOVIET EQUIPMENT THAT MADE THAT POSSIBLE. IF STALIN HAD OFFERED THESE TO THE NORTH KOREANS, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HIS SUCCESSORS WOULD NOT MAKE THE SAME GESTURE FOR THE VIETNAMESE?
THE VIETS WERE NO PUSHOVERS. THEY DEMANDED A STANDARDIZATION OF WEAPONS SO THEY COULD MANAGE THEIR LOGISTICS AND THE SOVIETS COMPLIED, QUITE UNPRECENDENTED IN THOSE EARLY HOT DAYS OF THE COLD WAR.
FOR ANGOLA, THE SOVIETS DID NOT HAVE AN ARMY THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE BUT ADVISERS. THEY WERE TOO HAPPY TO HAVE THE CUBANS SERVE AS THEIR PROXY ARMY ON HIRE FOR INTERNATIONAL MISSIONS. AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE CUBANS CAME THE IL 18 AND IL 22 MEDIUM RANGE TRANSPORTS. MORE WOULD FOLLOW, LOGISTICS AND AIRLIFT WERE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT FOR THE CUBANS TO SUSTAIN OPERATIONS ON THE FRONTS. THEY DID WELL IN ETHIOPIA AND CREATE A SURPRISE FOR THE SYRIANS INNITIALLY DURING THE YOM KIPPUR WAR. THE SYRIANS COULD HAVE RETAINED THEIR GAINS IF THEY HAD HAD THE POLITICAL WILL TO MAKE DO WITH WHAT THEY HAD. THEY CHOSE TO IGNORE THE CEASE FIRE AND HAZARDED ALL WHICH THEY LOST.
THE EUROPEAN MERCENARIES GAVE THE ANGOLANS A LOT OF TROUBLE. I RECALL ONE PORTUGUESE MERCENARY WHO HELD UP A CUBAN COLUMN ON THE EDGE OF A RIVER THOUGH HE DIED IN THAT ACTION OR WAS IT THE NEXT? THE CUBANS CAN BE GOOD FOR GUERRILA OPERATIONS BUT NOT CONVENTIONAL WARFARE. THEY WERE SYSTEMATICALLY OUTCLASSED BY THE SADF IN THE BUSH WARS. THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN GUERRILA FIGHTERS WERE JUST AS USELESS. IT IS ONE THING TO BRANDISH A WEAPON, IT IS ANOTHER TO KNOW HOW TO USE IT AND BE DISCIPINED IN USING IT. FIDEL CASTRO HAS DISDAIN FOR THE FREEDOM FIGHTERS OF THE FRONTLINE STATES AND IT SHOWS ON HIS FACE THOUGH HE WAS COMMANDING THE OPERATION FROM HAVANA.
IF CUBA WAS SUPPORTING THE BIAFRANS DURING THE NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR, THEY COULD HAVE COVERED THEMSELVES IN GLORY, ONLY THE IBOS OF WEST AFRICA ARE TALENTED AND INTELLIGENT BLACK FIGHTERS. THE REST ARE JUST REDECORATING THE TROPICAL GARDENS. JUST IMAGINE THE STRIDES THE NIGERIAN DIVISION MADE FROM THE NORTH VIA BEUNUE/MIDDLE BELT IN COMPARISON TO THAT OF THE SOUTHERN DIVISION FROM THE CREEK AREAS.
Are you implying that this weaspon was not used by the Algerian freedom fighters in North Africa?
In fact, French army did not encounter RPD machineguns in significant number in Vietnam, for it was not issued at that time to foreign countries. The Indochina War ended in 1954, before the end of the Krouchtchev doctrine.
Moreover, “Russians”, “soviets” or “Staline” didn’t “offered” weapons to Vietnam, as the Krouchtchev doctrine, precisely, was to promote diplomacy and negociation more than combats and provocations. “Offering” weapons to an army opposed to your diplomatic spokeperson (be it an ennemy, it is nevertheless a diplomatic representative) IS a provocation. So weapons from USSR were not that frequent at that time in Vietnam and, moreover, they were old weapons (PPSh 41 SMG, DP MG and M1891/30 rifles) and not brand-new, high-tech, state of the art weapons as was the RPD.
In fact the majority of the “soviet” post-WWII weapons in vietnamese hands were Chinese (thus not soviet at all).
By the way, SVT40 shoots a full-bore, full power cartridge, the 7,62x54R, not an intermedate one.
The Indochina War was won by Indochina because of people’s desire of freedom from a falling colonial empire that smothered them and thanks to guerilla tactics and systematic outnumbering the French. Not because of the usage of a small arm instead of another.
Apologies for being late for the party, but: “In fact the majority of the “soviet” post-WWII weapons in vietnamese hands were Chinese (thus not soviet at all)” This is somewhat true. I have examined many captured AKs varying from “quite old and used-up” Soviet production to “brand new in the cosmoline” specimens. All were of reasonable quality, acceptably accurate and very reliable. As for me, it makes no difference where the weapon was manufactured but rather the quality and reliability of the tool. As for, “THE CUBANS CAN BE GOOD FOR GUERRILA OPERATIONS BUT NOT CONVENTIONAL WARFARE.” I found them to be variable in fighting quality and spirit. The main thing I observed was that if appropriately “prompted” by 100% kill ambushes they could be encouraged to vacate that sector. A “calling card” to let them know exactly who they were up against appeared to help in that decision. Discipline and eagerness fro combat was frequently lacking
I do recall that engagement, but holding their own does not equate into outright defeat of the SADF. The Cubans were no push-overs, but they were not on par with the South Africans.
During the Suez campaign, Egyptian forces had stocks of these but they were not disciplined and the initiative went to the three invading armies of Britain, Isreal and France.
Isreal was not fooled for they saw the lethal potentials of those weapons. They needed no further persuasion to work on the Galil family of weapons. It could not have been too soon.
The development of the Galil began over ten years later as a result of the lessons learned from the Yom Kippur War. At any rate, the Egyptians did not have the AK47 at the time of the Suez Crisis, and I have not seen anything to suggest that they had the RPD either. The Egyptians fought fairly well, but they were no match for their opponents, especially the French units, all of which had been actively engaged in Algeria for a year and a half (plus any Indochina vets).
Please do you homework before spreading your disinformation. There are a lot of very knowledgeable individuals who read this site.
Yes. The Galil was, like nearly everybody here knows, a development of the Finnish Rk 62, which itself was a development of the AK-47. The Rk 62, not surprisingly, entered service in 1962. Development of the Galil started after the Six Day War in 1967.
Adoption of the Rk 62 by the Finnish Army had almost nothing to do with any actual combat with the weapon, either, rather it was based on Finnish WW2 experience on usefulness of the SMG for combat at ranges up to 200 meters. In testing the AK-47 performed nearly as well as SMGs and much better than semi-auto rifles at close ranges. At ranges up to 300 meters it was essentially as good as semi-auto rifles firing a full power cartridge. Considering the prevailing terrain types in Finland, the decision to adapt the assault rifle was a no-brainer and early 1950s plans for acquiring semi-auto or battle rifles were abandoned immediately following the testing of the AK-47.
I have reason to believe that former members of the Imperial Japanese Army were involved in the direction of operations. Thanks to the reports they had received of the engagements at the borders of Manchuria, they could have played a greater role in advising the Viets to switch to Eastbloc weapon stocks. Remember that the Japanese were the best infantry soldiers of the second world war.
The Japanese abilities in Jungle warfare were recognized by the Brits.
After Japanese surrender in Malaya, the Japanese Infantry were immediately re-employed for two more years by the Brits, rooting out the Brit’s former supposed allies, ethnic Chinese communists.
I’m not sure how much fighting of Japanese the Chinese communists actually did,
Jung Chan and Halliday (Mao the untold story) argue a strong case that the alliance between the communists and the nationalists was used to infiltrate and organise in new areas, rather than the reds doing any actual fighting of Japanese occupation forces.
Whatever the truth, Mao seems to have had some effective court historians – and after 1947, he had “control of the present”.
“Best infanty soldiers of the second world war” is a bit of an exaggeration. The IJA did very well in the early jungle warfare campaigns against the Allies, but their performance at Guadalcanal and New Guinea against better prepared and determined Allied troops was much less stellar even considering the logistical difficulties they had.
In any case, the Japanese were never very convincing on more open terrain than jungles. Their NCOs and low ranking officers were not encouraged to show much independent initiative, which lead to pretty formulaic tactics. This was very much the opposite of the Germans, who performed well on a variety of terrains and after initial difficulties were able to adapt quite well on previously unfamiliar terrain. Therefore, there is good reason to say that overall the Germans had the best infantry in WW2, and actual loss ratios against Allies support that notion even as late as 1944. The Germans were no supersoldiers, but their tactics were usually very good and flexible thanks to good NCO and officer training, and their enlisted men usually were quite well trained where it mattered the most.
PERHAPS YOU ELECT TO FORGET THAT BOTH THE GERMAN AND JAPANESE SOLDIERS WERE DOPED UP TO THEIR EYEBALLS IN DRUGS.THERE WAS SOMETHING SUSPICIOUS OF THE WHOLE THING. THE SOLDIERS ON GUADALCANAL WERE LABOUR TROOPS. TRAINED RESERVES ARRIVED LATER ON THE TOKYO EXPRESS.
BY 1944 THE AMERICANS HAD SUFFERED 1 000 000 CASUALTIES TO THE JAPANESE 1 400 000. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? UNDOUBTEDLY ONE SIDE HAD SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY AND FIREPOWER.
I do not know very much about Japanese use of drugs, but the German use of amphetamine is well documented. They used it during long battles when no relief troops were available, but definitely not continuously. The main users were fighter pilots, because the Luftwaffe had a chronic shortage of trained pilots after the losses of 1940 and the Battle of Britain. The German army physicians were well aware of the dangers to prolonged use of amphetamine and tried to prevent it.
The Japanese achieved a partial strategic surprise with Pearl Harbor and their early rapid campaigns of conquest, which largely explains their relatively good loss ratio up to 1944. By Okinawa it was not improving, however, despite the dogged resistance on favorable terrain.
To sum it up: the Imperial Japanese Army, as already admitted, was quite good at jungle warfare, but that alone does not prove that they had the best infantrymen of WW2 and definitely does not indicate that they had the best infantry overall.
The standard issue of Benzedrine ( an amphetamine-based compound ) and its commonplace usage by Allied airmen and other front-line serviceman to stay alert and functional through periods of combat fatigue and stress has long been well-documented, as has the issue and use of similar stimulants on the Axis side. It is mainly because this issue has been simply mentioned in passing in a most matter-of-fact way in numerous historical treatises and personal accounts that the implications have not been fully appreciated in the present-day context.
More realistically it was combined arms with prevalence of artillery which landed Vietnamese upper hand. It was the domestic population’s support who was the decisive factor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQdFGr7NQ4o
The foreigners with hostile attitude ae typically not welcome.
IT CAME TO FIREPOWER. THE FRENCH WITH THEIR MAT 49 SMG HAD COME AT A TIME WHEN THE SMG WAS ON THE SLIDE. THE ERA BELONGED TO THE SELF LOADING RIFLE AND THE BATTLE AUTOMATIC RIFLE FOR THOSE TYPES OF ENGAGEMENTS. THE ARTILLERY, IF YOU ARE MENTIONING THE SIEGE OF DIEM PHU WAS SOVIET. THE SAME GUNS THAT HAD STAMMERED OUT A TATTOO OF DEATH FOR THE JAPENESE IN THE MANCHURIAN OPERATION ANDTHE AXIS POWERS IN EASTERN EUROPE.
SOMETHING ELSE WAS NEEDED FOR ENGAGEMENTS..THE AUTOMATIC BATTLE RIFLE HAD COME OF AGE. THE SMGS WERE ON THE WANE THOUGH MANY DID NOT KNOW IT AT THE TIME. THE WEAPON THAT BEGAN IN THE DYING MONTHS OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR REACHED IT ZENITH IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR.
Many of the artillery pieces used by the Viet Minh, and shown in photos from the battle of Dien Bien Phu, are American 105mm howitzers. Probably captured in Korea or from the French.
This has to be most logical interpretation of weapon supply source for most of anti-colonial conflicts be it in Asia or Africa.
There is no better source than ‘domestic’ provided in form of local colonists and their puppet regimes. Stories of all encompassing Soviet aid are wet dreams and are notoriously ideologically motivated. No, Soviet RPD did not win the Indochina war; no way.
Correct. The 130mm M-46 field gun and its derivatives, which far outranged their American-made 155mm equivalents, and which Lenin Chigbundu is referring to, did not enter service in Vietnam until the advent of the NVA ( North Vietnamese Army ) proper in the 1960’s. Certainly, the Vietminh ( who were the 1950’s organized resistance to French colonial rule ) were not equipped as such. I think L.C. may be getting his historical timelines crossed.
Dude, kill the caps lock will you? No small arm is decisive on the operation or strategic levels. Wars are won by logistics, training, combined arms co ordination , morale and support in the population, including intelligence. The artillery on both sides of the first indochina war were mostly US 105 howitzers. Thousands had been shipped to the Nationalist Chinese, and may have been captured and repurposed by the PLA as well as the Korean capture weapons. The French had been mostly equipped by the US via Lebd Lease , post war materiel transfers and the Marshall Plan.
Sorry about the cap locks. Back to the game, how do you account for the fact that Viet Minh field artillery were outranging the much vaunted 105mm?
Are you implying they rebored the guns?
So much for colonialism…
Pith Helmets… “I’m suggesting that’s a positive”
Why are you shouting? Posting in all-caps does not give your posts any more gravitas.
This is so strange, to hear that DSA is stopping their RPD run. I still have a gun magazine from last year that i occasionally read where they have a large article showcasing their various models, and how much better it is than the M60.
I guess the buyers market was not interested.
“It was designed in 1944 for the then-new M43 cartridge (7.62x39mm)”
It was designed for the M43 cartridge, but in 1944 it was still 7.62×41.
For some or other reason soviets used slightly longer case than Winter(GECO) family of cartridges(but after few years returned to almost exact case length as in german originals).
http://s200.photobucket.com/user/Nolo_photo/media/762×41.png.html
ps. I’m looking for some more info regarding pre-war italian intermediate cartridge(last in table below).
It is another 6.5 carcano “wildcat” – just like GeCo and soviet intermediate cartridges – and seems to be very similar to 7.35×51(except for centimetre shorter case).
http://s1049.photobucket.com/user/mayatico/media/C.jpg.html
“For some or other reason”
To enhance accuracy bullet shape was altered – different ogive and also get boat tail, to retain overall cartridge length bullet was seater deeper and neck was made shorter.
What a pity that DSA is choosing to discontinue the production of semi-automatic RPD’s for the civilian market here, but I suppose they have to make a living like anyone else and if there is insufficient interest to support sales they simply have no choice but to do so.
I seem to recall that the RPD was an all-time favorite LMG of Weaponsman ( a.k.a. Kevin R.C. O’Brien of FW ) based on his hard-earned and very real battlefield experiences in Afghanistan. He had contributed his invaluable and informative comments on this website about the RPD when we were all discussing various articles that covered topics ( such as GPMG’s ) with related or adjunct threads a few years ago.
Maybe the parts kits are drying up.
Perhaps — but then again, as TankCDR66 has implied, something like an RPD, which was originally designed to be a fully-automatic weapon, would be a lot more appealing to buyers if it had a higher rate of fire, by whatever means, than basic semi-auto.
A few cases of 762×39 and some practice I think you should be able to bump fire the RPD from the bipod. No floppy stock required. That would cure the proletarian full auto blues. I wonder how well this RPD clone works for this method of firing.
Probably not, unfortunately. The trigger on mine is heavy with a long reset travel that makes bump-fire near impossible to attain.
COMBAT ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHER PROPORTION OF LOSSES ON THE EASTERN FRONT WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE LACK OF SUSTAINED FIRE FROM THE DP LMGS WITH THEIR PAN MAGAZINES. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FORESEEN WITH THE POSTMORTHEM OF THE WINTER WAR. THE PPSH SMG OPERATORS COULD ONLY DO SO MUCH FOR CLOSE QUARTER COMBAT BUT THEY COULD NOT REACH OUT TO FAR RANGES. THE PAN FED LMGS COULD ONLY DO SO MUCH FOR THE FIRE SUPPORT ROLE BUT CLEARLY AT THIS STAGE DURIGN THE WAR, WHAT WAS NEEDED WAS A BELT FED LMG THAT COULD BE FIRED FROM HE HIP. WITH THE GERMAN GPMGS CUTTING UP THE OPPOSITION, AN ANSWER WAS NEEDED.
THE RESULT WAS THIS WEAPON. RUSSIA HAD STRUCK THE RIGHT BALANCE BUT THEY HAD NOT STUCK WITH IT. They could have rehoused the new round with an intermediate one so it would complement the assault rifle. It would take the insurgencies in the Caucausus mountains and in particular Afghanistan to make them realise their own mistake.
“LACK OF SUSTAINED FIRE FROM THE DP LMGS WITH THEIR PAN MAGAZINES. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FORESEEN WITH THE POSTMORTHEM OF THE WINTER WAR.”
There was attempt to make belt adapter for DP machine gun as early as 1939 but it failed.
“They could have rehoused the new round with an intermediate one so it would complement the assault rifle. It would take the insurgencies in the Caucausus mountains and in particular Afghanistan to make them realise their own mistake.”
New Russian 5.45 machine gun Токарь is supposed to use high-capacity magazines.
According to requirement: http://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/51/876908.html
each one have to be delivered with 4 examples of 60 round magazine and 4 examples of 90 round magazine, it has also to be able to use 5.45 magazines for AK series.
Man, you seem to have been everywhere….. and in span of at least 100 years. You are so adamant with your first-hand knowledge it’s short of amazing.
Does you first name have to do something with it? 🙂
I think that one of the best features of Forgotten Weapons is the comment section, with it’s lively debate from highly knowledgeable history and weapon enthusiasts (rather than being a collection of stereotypical “knuckle-dragger” gun guys) — many of whom know far more than I do or probably ever will.
Such well-informed discussion forums as this, while drawing in a wide variety of people, can also attract enthusiastic youngsters, who can sometimes slightly ‘overdo it’ demonstrating what they know (or think they know) while trying to fit in with the flow.
But I certainly can’t complain — many of my own posts tend to be rambling streams of thought, tangentials, “what if’s” and not uncommonly things I immediately wish I could change upon reading the ill-thought-out post. (though I do try to avoid making too many hardline historical judgements — or especially, personal comments)
WHAT? OH WELL, THANKS ANYWAY. I HAVE ENGROSSED IN THIS STUDY SINCE THE AGE OFT THREE. ENLIGHTENMENT CAME IN 1985 AND I HAVE HELD ON SINCE THEN.
Gently, my friend, gently :).
A RELIANCE ON THE MAGAZINE FED LMGS FOR SPAIN, THE MANCHURIAN BORDER, THE CHINESE CIVIL WAR AND THE WINER WAR COULD BE ACCEPTABLE WITH THE NORMS OF THE KIND OF OPPOSITION THAT THEY WERE FACING AT THE TIME.
WHAT CHANGED EVERYTHING WAS THE BELATED INTRODUCTION OF THE GPMP TO THE MODERN BATTLEFIELD. FROM THAT MOMENT ON, THE DAYS OF THE MAGAZINE FED TYPES WERE WERE NUMBERED.
HOW MANY TIMES HAD BURLY OR BRAWNY SS TROOPERS SINGLE HANDEDD BRANDISH AND OPERATED THE GPMGS ON THE FIRE SUPPORT ROLE FOR A SUSTAINABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. EVEN THE FALLSHIMJAGER DID BETTER YET THE ENEMIES COULD NOT REALISE THAT BELT FEEDS WAS THE WAY FORWARD.
“ENEMIES COULD NOT REALISE THAT BELT FEEDS WAS THE WAY FORWARD.”
Soviets notice belt-fed superiority, but prefer not to make large-scale change in what factories are doing, as it would lower number of weapons delivered. The result was RP-46 i.e. belt-fed version of DP machine gun.
That explains the high casualties that they sustained on the battle front. How many times was an LMG operator caught out while reloading by a GPMG gunner?
Actually, it doesn’t explain the casualty rate. Small arms of all sort account for a surprisingly small percentage of casualties in modern, high intensity warfare. Recent analysis of ground combat casualties for WW2, military wounds and deaths were caused primarily by four sources:
1) Mortars, Grenades, Mines, etc: 40-50% of wounds, 20-40% deaths
2) Artillery: 30-50% of wounds, 50-60% of deaths
3) Bombs: 5-10% of wounds, < 5% of deaths
4) Small Arms fire: 5-10% of wounds, <1% of deaths
I know that in my time on active duty, I was far more concerned about other tanks, aircraft and artillery (in that order) than anything else.
“The RPK was lighter and almost entirely parts-compatible with the AKM rifles, and used the same magazines, thus simplifying logistics and supply”
RPK can use 30 round magazines but they are NOT default magazines for that weapon: these are 40 round box and 75 round drum.
30 rounders were default for Yugo M72 RPK version. Some drums were available but never widespread, and 40 rounders were rejected due the making weapon profile too high.
Also M72 was more standardized with M70 then RPK was with AK – it used same stock, and same thickness of receiver.
I have always thought that the RPD was a great design, not too heavy for a LMG, and good firepower. Only criticism I would make was concerning its recoil – when firing it full auto, I found the recoil to be fairly unpleasant, and made it difficult to hold it on target. If not held very firmly it would jump about and the butt would knock me in the face! Muzzle flash was considerable as well – no flash suppressor. Maybe the gas regulator was set wide open at the time. I found the M60 to be much more controllable and comfortable to shoot, but of course heavier and with reliability problems.
Problem is that RPD weights alsmost same as PKM (7.4 vs 7.5kg for empty gun with bipod), and there is simply no comparing them…
On a related matter: the Finnish Kvkk 62 weighs nearly 8.5kg empty, so when the first line Finnish infantry (Jaegers) switched to the PKM in the last decade, they got a nearly 1kg lighter weapon, which even compensates for the heavier ammunition somewhat. Somehow the Kvkk 62 managed to be several hundred grams heavier than the Czech vz. 52 it was developed from. It does have a slightly heavier but fixed barrel.
The Finnish Army tested the RPD as well, but the rattling belt drum was considered to be a fatal flaw in light infantry use. The rate of fire was also found to be somewhat less than optimal for the kind of use envisaged for a belt-fed LMG in the 1950s.
Ian,
You might be happier with your RPD if you can find a bipod with adjustable legs. The M60 I trained on had adjustable bipod legs (although we seldom bothered adjusting them) and might be adaptable to the RPD. I have one of the Vector RPDs with the full length barrel & original bipod and find that it requires me to take a firing position too high off of the ground in many tactical situations. I trained on the M60 and used to own an MG42 and found the bipod legs about the right height, but of course it didn’t have a large drum mag below it as does the RPD. Incidentally, my Vector RPD has been completely reliable and satisfactory – no problems encountered.
If I had to take an RPD into combat, I’d try to find an adjustable bipod for it, lose the all but one of the drums and have my assistant gunner wrangle the belts, as is the case with the MG34, MG42, M1919, etc.. Also, I note that DSA carries an adapter to allow the RPD to use SAW ammo bags.
Finally, I think that one of the reasons that the semi-auto RPD didn’t sell as well as it might have is that there are no crank-fire or slide-fire adapters made for them. I know I’d buy one. They’d be a lot more fun on the range if we could crank up the rate of fire a bit.
The bipod from a Norinco NHM 91 might work as well. It looks ComBloc enough and is fairly short in the folded unadjusted position.
I’ve got a 16″ RPD built by Stan at Project Guns. Damn handy rifle, despite the weight. FYI, the shortened bipod is usable if you change the drum bracket out to use the M249 SAW “Nut Sacks”. The steel drums are too tall, and rattle incessantly anyway. Since we’re talking 16″ RPD anyway I’d assume one to not be terribly concerned with historical accuracy. Pro-tip: when firing from the shoulder, I’ve started turning my support hand out the opposite way (pinkie forward) and it seems to support the fore-end much better. Try it.
Just watched the video. Ian, I do not have to open the cover or pull on the belt to load mine. Just shove the belt tab through till the pawls hold it and then charge. I’m not an expert though, maybe yours is different somehow. Its the simplest belt-fed loading technique I know of, much easier than the Browning 1919.
My RPD is like yours – no problem with that first round. Reminds me of the M60 of my Army days or my old MG42, and as you say, considerably easier than either the 1919 or M2.
It’s great. Can you talk more about RPD?
By Lenin Chigbundu : ” Back to the game, how do you account for the fact that Viet Minh field artillery were outranging the much vaunted 105mm?
Are you implying they rebored the guns?”
I think you are getting your historical timelines crossed. It was the NVA ( North Vietnamese Army ) of the 1960’s and later that was equipped with the superb Soviet 130mm M-46 and 122mm D-30 guns that outranged the U.S. 155mm and 105mm guns and howitzers respectively. The Viet Minh, who were collectively the organized military resistance to the Japanese occupation in the 1940’s and the French colonial forces in the 1950’s, were pre-NVA and had no M-46’s or D-30’s in their inventory. Instead, they used a combination of 75mm recoilless rifles, 81mm and 120mm mortars, 105mm howitzers and such, mostly U.S.-made in origin. It was the Viet Minh’s clever and imaginative use of the existing terrain in both the indirect and direct-fire roles with these weapons, often in defilade and / or well-camouflaged positions that prevented effective counter-battery fire, that enabled them to surprise and outshoot the French artillery. It was therefore not a simple matter of outranging the enemy at all, and historical analyses tends to support this, as at the Battle Of Dien Bien Phu.
I found the rear sight on my RPD almost unuseable. The rear sight notch is way too small the vertical marks just confuse my eyes. I found a replacement hand guard that that allows the mounting of
Firefield MG Machine Gun Reflex Sight
a . that is much more useable. http://www.dsarms.com/c-719-rpd-products.aspx http://www.walmart.com/ip/31196810?wmlspartner=wlpa&adid=22222222227025279721&wmlspartner=wmtlabs&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=43910295512&wl4=pla-84282355712&wl5=9017959&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=8175035&wl11=online&wl12=31196810&wl13=&veh=sem
The RPD, a machine gun developed by the Soviet Union, a great information to know
It’s great. I would like to know more about RPD if possible. Thanks for sharing!