Well, here’s where it gets somewhat messy. There’s a very good chance the Kalashnikov was invented by one or more German engineers (including people who developed assault rifles prior to WW2), and Russian involvement was no more than oversight. Kalashnikov, and his “legend” was always a stage-managed product created by the Soviets for mass consumption much as the rifle was intended for mass use. Kalashnikov himself has told many inconsistent stories, even in addition to the official version.
It seems far more likely that some of the German experts with a track record of designed the rifle, and at most the Russians (of which Kalashnikov was involved in only one team working at the same facility) ruggedized the design. Kalashnikov himself seems to have been very good at self-promotion, and may have been able to hide some inconvenient family history with the help of officers who wanted him to ve their poster child for Soviet achievement.
Yes, all of that is well known among students of military weapons. None of it makes the AK a copy of the Stg 44 which was the original assertion that I was disputing. Assault rifles in general have simply tended to have some similarity of appearance due to form following function.
Another data point.
I have a friend who was in the oil exploration business in the 1990-2000’s. He spent several years in the early 90’s in Russia working in the field drilling exploratory wells. He commented that the russian roustabouts on the rigs were very good. He also said that almost all his field workers had college degrees. That was expected for any job that required dealing with heavy or technical equipment.
Probably more like the 120mm rifled gun on the M103 Heavy Tank of 1957, as the M48 Pattons were armed with 90mm guns that were variants of a WWII gun, and the M60s were armed with the 105mm gun M68, which is a licence-built Royal Ordnance L7 105mm gun.
And the 120mm guns on the M1A1/M1A2 Abrams are license-built Rheinmetall guns.