We’re watching season seven of Dr. Who, and in one episode taking place on a Russian submarine during the 1980s the crew is shown using both pistols and AK-47s. Is this remotely accurate? I could see the crew being issued sidearms, but why would a craft housing soldiers who aren’t going to be engaging in person to person combat with the enemy stock assault rifles?
So, in summary, here are my questions:
Would a Russian submarine in the 1980s have stocked AK-47s? (Now that I think about it, was the Russian military even still using AK-47s by the 80s?)
What kinds of firearms are assigned to the crew of modern submarines?
A cursory googling of the topic didn’t turn up any answers. Thanks in advance for any info you can give me on this!
I’m afraid I don’t have an answer for what kinds of firearms are stocked on modern submarines in general, or Soviet submarines in the 1980s. The Soviet military was definitely still using the AK-47 in the 1980s; it is still in use in former Soviet states. The AK-74 replaced the AKM which replaced the AK-47, but the AKM and AK-47 are still in use in reserve and second line units in the Russian army today. It’s mostly a matter of numbers produced; more AK-47s were produced than the total number of all other models of assault rifles combined. About 5 million AK-74s were produced, about 10 million AKMs, and about 75 million AK-47s. For comparison about 8 million M16s were produced and about 1.5 million of its predecessor the M14.
If assault rifles were carried on Soviet submarines it would not surprise me if they didn’t have priority on being issued AK-74s but had AK-47s or AKMs. The AK-47 and AKM look indistinguishable to the layperson or even to many or most non-laypersons; the AKM was simply an improved AK-47.
The equivalent long arm, yes. While nuclear subs have a primary purpose of launching nukes, they are also equipped to undertake other missions as needed. Because there may be times when a sub crew will need to, for example, board other craft the bosuns mates or equivalent will have the equivalent firearms trainings of typical infantryman, and weapons to match.
IIRC AK74, but to an untrained eye they look about the same. For that matter, I imagine that a lot of older weapons were relegated to exactly this type of role where they were “unimportant”.
According to friend who was served on one in the late 90s, standard military longarms sufficient for the full crew, sufficient sidearms for the officers plus some, a couple of light machine guns and a handful of of mortars, claymores, rpgs etc.
The idea being that this stuff doesn’t take up much room, and in the event that the sub is the first craft on the scene capable of boarding a critical vessel or set up a beachhead they can make a fair job of it. It’s not something they ever expect to happen, but the brass doesn’t like the idea that the only option when you encounter a ship with carrying a fleeing foreign leader/scientist is to sink it or let it go. Similarly, if your sub sinks an enemy ship after they’ve dropped off a party of engineers, it’s embarrassing when you have to sail home and let them set up fortifications and an airfield because you don’t have any weapons that work on dry land.
Come to think of it, I only ever saw one submerged crew firearm in the movies: a P-38 in Das Boot. But it may also have something to do with the mission. It’s not far out for a submarine to have a mission as critical as, say, the Bismark’s Atlantic sortie. Officers in the Bismark were armed. President Quezon fled the Japanese-overrun Philippines aboard a submarine with an armed escort, but they were not regular sub crew members.
Only one data point. The US nuclear attack submarine I was on in the '80s had Colt 1911 45 caliber pistols, 12ga pump shotguns and M14 rifles for its security force.
Where are these weapons? Does each crew member have his own weapon to care for, or are they stored in a weapons room, since they will only be used in an extraordinary circumstance?
Either you aren’t being serious, or your friend was not. The idea of submariners setting up beachheads or conducting amphibious operations with crew served weapons is just silly.
Long arms and even a light machine gun? No problem believing that – you can even see pictures of guys with long arms in the bridge while a submarine is surfaced. (The weapon is hard to identify, but look at the guy on the right in the helmet and sunglasses.) But mortars? Give me a break.
An attack sub probably carries out missions like that, but I don’t think a ballistic missile sub would ever be tasked with any sort of covert mission. Attack subs are smaller and would do it better, and a ballistic missile sub’s primary mission - nuking an enemy out of existence after they’ve nuked your country - is way too important to risk having them dump a boatload of SEALs on a coast or anything. The sub officers I’ve known have always said that duty on a ballistic missile sub is the most boring duty imaginable - they patrol a given area, and turn away from every contact.
US submarines don’t have boatswains mates. No one has anything resembling infantry training. A submarine is the worst craft imaginable for conducting boardings.
Marines? Not that I ever heard of. Attack submarines are certainly capable of transporting and deploying SEAL teams. SEALs use only their own equipment and arms.
Indeed, AKM stands for Avtomat Kalashnikova Modernizirovanniy – Modernised Kalashnikov automatic rifle. There were several improvements, but the one that stands out the most is the receiver. The AK-47 had a milled steel receiver, and the AKM’s receiver was stamped steel.
No, however torpedomen and auxiliarymen are treated as combat effectives. mrAru did his medalshoots with a .45 that was defective and locked back every shot and still qualified sharpshooter in the time alloted. On M14 was marksman even though he had not been shooting regularly and shot cold with preset sights on a weapon he had never touched previously [or with Kentucky windage in effect.] He really hated having to do the run down to New Haven for range quals.
No, not “combat effectives”, security force. All forward (non-nuclear) personnel had to qualify annually on small arms. Many were indeed marksman and sharpshooter qualified, it’s simply a superior score. Range qualification is not combat training. Security force is not combat force.
Torpedoman were responsible for upkeep of small arms; cleaning, maintenance, inventory, etc.
Some Torpedoman were also Range Masters able to qualify others in small arms. It was handy to not be dependant on the base’s resources when trying to keep 50-60 sailors qualified in order to stand watches.
Apropos of nothing, it’s amusing in 50’s-vintage science fiction movies how well armed space crews are. Anything from pistols up to hand grenades and bazookas.
I seem to recall that when a Soviet submarine S 363 ran aground rather publicly in Sweden in 1981 somebody was photographed on the sail with a AK ready to repel boarders. Perhaps someone can point us to one of the newspaper photos that appeared at the time.
Firearms would be kept in the Weapons Locker. It’s possible the CO might keep a sidearm in the safe in his quarters. Claymores and mortars? Who knows what’s in the equipment cases a SEAL team brings aboard? But there’s no way a sub with no SEALs aboard would have claymores or mortars.
