Obviously there is a lot of disputed theories on the origins of the NVA SKS.
I came across an NVA on GB, and it had this written in the description:
"1963 NORTH VIETNAMESE SKS 2ND YEAR PRODUCTION ('62-'65)THEN FACTORY WAS DESTROYED AFTER FACTORY WAS REMOVED, CHINESE BEGAN IMPORTING M21"
I messaged the seller and asked where they got this info from. This was the reply:
"operation "rolling thunder" was begun in 1965 pinpointing specific munitions and arms factories in N Vietnam and this is where the nva 5 point star over 1 production ended, and the M21's started arriving from China at that time"
So basically, this theory is that the NVA was a Vietnam made rifle, and the factories were destroyed as part of Operation Rolling Thunder, at which point the M21 was then produced by China and sent to Vietnam to take the Type 63s place.
It sounds like a pretty plausible theory to me. We know M21s came out of vietnam as bring backs. Would NV have needed the M21 if they still could have produced the type 63? I don't see why they'd need them if they were making the type 63, but with the factories being destroyed in 65 (which is also the last theorized type 63 production year), it makes sense. And if NV wasn't making the type 63 and they were in fact being made by China, then why would China stop making that same gun and make a completely different model?
Some good food for thought. Personally, it sounds like the most sound theory so far.
You should have asked a follow up on what his source for that came from. Without it, it's just more unproven speculation but, given the timeline, it's at least plausible. Sadly, I doubt if either China or 'Nam would be very forth coming if asked.
Certainly not a new theory...I've seen it several times but have yet to see any credible sources validate it. If a factory did exist and got bombed, which is kind of plausible, one would think a FOIA request could flush that out. Someone made the story up at some point and it stuck, but I doubt it was based on factual information but rather speculation. Does anyone have any real facts to support it?
Here we go.... Again.
https://clone.sks-files.com/index.php?topic=710.0
Being made in Mogadishu is also certainly plausible. Gotta love bedtime stories.
QuoteWould NV have needed the M21 if they still could have produced the type 63? I don't see why they'd need them if they were making the type 63, but with the factories being destroyed in 65 (which is also the last theorized type 63 production year
I think you are confused as to who made the Type 63. The T63 is.... North Korean.
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on September 12, 2016, 08:29:21 AM
QuoteWould NV have needed the M21 if they still could have produced the type 63? I don't see why they'd need them if they were making the type 63, but with the factories being destroyed in 65 (which is also the last theorized type 63 production year
I think you are confused as to who made the Type 63. The T63 is.... North Korean.
My bad.... wrong nomenclature. I'll read through the other post when I get home later.
It has been my understanding (personal study and conversations with my brother who spent time there during the war) that the Viet Cong did not have their own weapons manufacturing plants during the war.
IIRC, their infantry weapons were all supplied by China and Russia supplied them with trucks, munitions, artillery, anti aircraft weapons and the like. 8)
My Bias: Personally, I lean towards the assembly of these Star 1 SKSs in NV from Chinese parts, perhaps starting with barreled receivers, maybe Vietnamese made stocks and handguards. I find the nationalistic pride hypothesis for indigenous assembly and serialization of these SKSs appealing, but unsubstantiated, and the lack of any other indications of NV manufacture of small arms casts doubt on manufacture of the SKSs in NV from steel billet and bar stock.
Facts: From observations of the known examples of Star 1 SKSs in the US (41 photo-verified examples and 22 additional serial numbers identified elsewhere, but without photo verification in our hands).
--They have a serial number that has 6 digits. The last 4 digits of the SN ascend sequentially, and without apparent interruption, to 5805.
--The first two places are 62, 63, 64 and 65, also ascending sequentially, but clearly they do not turn over at the 9999th unit produced, since that number was never reached for any of the series/years.
--The progression of the pattern is consistent with a year designation and with the numbers observed. The years 1962-65 are of the correct era for the Vietnam War and escalating American involvement.
Hypothesis: The first two digits of the SN represent the year of manufacture/assembly.
The hypothesis is consistent with the observed facts and therefore plausible, but not proven, by the observations.
Fact: Approximate production figures by year/series, splitting the difference between the high/low number at the year/series break, is: 62, 155 units; 63, 954 units; 64, 2316 units; 65, 2380 units.
Assumptions: 62-65 represent years and 62 was merely a partial year of production/assembly.
--Then (simple algebraic fact): these figures would represent an average production rate of just 2.6 units per day for ‘63 and about 6.4 units per day for ‘64 and ‘65
Deductions and opinions:
--A rate of production or assembly of 6.4 units per day appears consistent with a small shop rather than a large factory.
--If these SKSs were assembled from a barreled-receiver, the average rate of assembly could have been achieved by perhaps one, or very easily by a few, individuals.
--The small size of such an operation means it could have been easily moved or distributed and set up in a small structure or cave that would be difficult to target by aerial bombardment, or even hit at random in the relatively large area (~500 square miles) of the Hanoi to Haiphong industrial corridor (germane to discussion below).
--If these “Star 1” SKSs were actually manufactured (milled, etc.) obviously it would take more workers, and a fixed (or more difficult to move) location, but still at the small shop scale, or a side production line in a larger factory. However, the evidence suggests the parts were of Chinese origin and not milled in NV.
--In my opinion, the very low rate of production argue that the economies of scale simply wouldn’t justify NV manufacture from steel stock, unless manufacture of other high quality small arms was a part of the small factory. The apparent lack of observation of other indigenously manufactured small arms of high quality in the 60-65 time frame argues against Vietnamese manufacture of the SKS from steel stock.
Facts:
--Operation Rolling Thunder commenced on March 2, 1965
--The USAF and USN employed conventional unguided munitions and the pilots and their aircraft were subject to sophisticated (sponsor supplied) anti-aircraft capabilities (including radar installations and SAMs) prior to and during their bombing runs further complicating precision targeting.
--Arms and ammunition continued to flow into and through Vietnam from north to south, prior to, during, and after Rolling Thunder officially concluded in 1968.
--Rolling Thunder (and any subsequent aerial bombardment operations) did not destroy all transportation and/or manufacture/assembly of warfighting materials in North Vietnam.
Conclusion: Rolling Thunder could have destroyed the small SKS shop or shops, if there were any. It does not follow that Rolling Thunder did destroy the shop.
--In my opinion, the case for Rolling Thunder being the reason that Star 1 SKS assembly ceased in Vietnam is weak.
QuoteFact: Approximate production figures by year/series, splitting the difference between the high/low number at the year/series break, is: 62, 155 units; 63, 954 units; 64, 2316 units; 65, 2380 units.
Assumptions: 62-65 represent years and 62 was merely a partial year of production/assembly.
--Then (simple algebraic fact): these figures would represent an average production rate of just 2.6 units per day for ‘63 and about 6.4 units per day for ‘64 and ‘65
Deductions and opinions:
--A rate of production or assembly of 6.4 units per day appears consistent with a small shop rather than a large factory.
--If these SKSs were assembled from a barreled-receiver, the average rate of assembly could have been achieved by perhaps one, or very easily by a few, individuals.
--The small size of such an operation means it could have been easily moved or distributed and set up in a small structure or cave that would be difficult to target by aerial bombardment, or even hit at random in the relatively large area (~500 square miles) of the Hanoi to Haiphong industrial corridor (germane to discussion below).
Just one huge problem with this part. Its all based off of a full years worth of production and the assumption it took place over the entire years time. China was fully capable of cranking out over 1k guns a DAY.
Agreed, I think we're on the same page. My point in computing the averages was to show that the numbers produced were extremely small, if someone wants to argue that these were actually manufactured in North Vietnam. Even if they were only productive 1/3 of the days of the year that would be 20 per day. It just doesn't make sense that this rate of production represented North Vietnamese manufacture of SKSs. To go to the expense of setting up a production line in a resource limited economy and produce an inconsequential number of carbines, doesn't make economic sense. It's much more logical that China shipped them a block of barreled receivers or full guns without SNs that were then assembled, or stocked, or stamped with a star in North Vietnam.
Gotcha
I found a pic of one of the Viet Cong jungle storage/shop sites that was located along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. It does look like they received parts from elsewhere and assembled them as needed--this way they could very easily and quickly move the entire jungle shop to another area if needed.
(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac131/gail_peterson1/Misc/A%20binh%20tram%20on%20Ho%20Chi%20Min%20Trail_zpsehxfi2an.jpg)
The Rolling Thunder hypothesis has been around for quite a while. prince50 really likes to push it, but it appears many others agree with him including Mr. Cougaruchi. I have my doubts on it though. I also have my doubts on the 62 through 65 definitively being a date. They very well could be, but the whole low production rate that P32 brings up really bothers me. I think the guns may actually follow the std. Chinese dating theory, with 6 being the 6th year of manufacture (1961) and the 2-5 being a placeholder for the month of manufacture (Feb through May). The /?5\ guns most certainly do this, though there is a differentiating dash (-) in the S/N where there is none present on these NVAs. It could be that these NVA guns were prototypes to get type 56 production rolling again once the Russians pulled their technicians and stopped sending hardware after the Sino-Soviet split. Once it was perfected, then the 6 mil /26\ guns rolled off the line, though only a partial years worth and still with issues to overcome leading to low (sub 25k) production numbers. Pure rampant speculation on my part on all of this, but I have as much proof as the rolling thunderers!! thumb1
One of the main reasons I have a problem with the 1965 possibility is that by this time the Chinese were in full production of the 10 mil /26\s which we know are short lugged, spike bayonet style type 56s with both side and bottom sling swivels on large font stocks. Perhaps these exclusively long lugged, blade bayo, side swiveled, small stock font NVA guns were made from excess obsolete stock, but man that's a heck of a bunch of things that had to come together for those guns to all be be in that exact configuration. If it was surplus, I'd think you'd see variations with them continuing to use some newer component when when the old style components were all used up. Maybe that's the reason for such low production. Who knows though. dntknw1
To argue that the rolling thunder hypothesis is plausible is one thing. To argue that it is true is quite another.
Once again RM takes the words right out of my head, but in a more diplomatic context. thumb1
QuoteChinese dating theory, with 6 being the 6th year of manufacture (1961) and the 2-5 being a placeholder for the month of manufacture (Feb through May)
Funny... I was going to suggest this very same thing, and now phos wont have to look forward to my post later. Oh well... He will live. rofl
Quote from: running-man on September 12, 2016, 04:07:25 PM
I think the guns may actually follow the std. Chinese dating theory, with 6 being the 6th year of manufacture (1961) and the 2-5 being a placeholder for the month of manufacture (Feb through May). The /?5\ guns most certainly do this, though there is a differentiating dash (-) in the S/N where there is none present on these NVAs. It could be that these NVA guns were prototypes to get type 56 production rolling again once the Russians pulled their technicians and stopped sending hardware after the Sino-Soviet split. Once it was perfected, then the 6 mil /26\ guns rolled off the line, though only a partial years worth and still with issues to overcome leading to low (sub 25k) production numbers. Pure rampant speculation on my part on all of this, but I have as much proof as the rolling thunderers!! thumb1
Yeah, a much better explanation than a 500 pounder from an F-105 took out the SKS production hut. This scheme seems plausible and more probable than the Rolling Thunder hypothesis, with the corollary of "they only made a few SKSs per day, because, uh...". However, using a year-month designation early in the year, then switching to a 6 million SN in June, is still not entirely satisfying.
(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z475/phosphorus32/NV%20SKS%20Factory%202.png) (http://s1191.photobucket.com/user/phosphorus32/media/NV%20SKS%20Factory%202.png.html)
Disclaimer: photograph has been alteredQuote from: running-man on September 12, 2016, 04:07:25 PM
One of the main reasons I have a problem with the 1965 possibility is that by this time the Chinese were in full production of the 10 mil /26\s which we know are short lugged, spike bayonet style type 56s with both side and bottom sling swivels on large font stocks. Perhaps these exclusively long lugged, blade bayo, side swiveled, small stock font NVA guns were made from excess obsolete stock, but man that's a heck of a bunch of things that had to come together for those guns to all be be in that exact configuration. If it was surplus, I'd think you'd see variations with them continuing to use some newer component when when the old style components were all used up. Maybe that's the reason for such low production. Who knows though. dntknw1
The early features are an excellent point and makes an even stronger argument that they all came from a single block of Chinese production thumb1
Quote from: Phosphorus32 on September 12, 2016, 06:21:48 PM
Yeah, a much better explanation than a 500 pounder from an F-105 took out the SKS production hut. This scheme seems plausible and more probable than the Rolling Thunder hypothesis, with the corollary of "they only made a few SKSs per day, because, uh...". However, using a year-month designation early in the year, then switching to a 6 million SN in June, is still not entirely satisfying.
I entirely agree Jon; that's why I've never posted it publicly before. I don't know, honestly, that I entirely believe it myself. It may just be an unused block of numbers that someone cobbled together. It may be some other type of Chinese numbering system we haven't cracked yet. It may be that the guns were indeed built in Vietnam and the numbering scheme is theirs and not the Chinese. It may even be that they are '62 through '65 built guns (though that 'YY' prefixed S/N type wasn't first seen until 1970, I have no examples of *anything* like this prior to that anyhow). I'm not saying it is one or the other, I just wanted to point out that there are other plausible, but possibly not probable, and certainly not provable alternate hypotheses out there. Anyone who spouts off that the reason the guns stopped in '65 is "because of rolling thunder. Q.E.D.", offers no disclaimer that it's a personal hypothesis, and also offers no data to back up any claim has zero credibility in my book. I'm much less likely to listen to anything else that person has to say.
I've read through the original thread, and this one as well. I apologize for not realizing there already was a thread about this....but one thing I have learned is that it's good to re-visit old topics because sometimes new information comes up and new people have different views.
I see the valid points made for all possible scenarios. I agree that it's very unlikely that these were made in Vietnam, but at the same time there is no proof they were or weren't. There are a lot of strong arguments for Chinese production, but again, there is no proof of anything for certain. At this point, my personal view is that there was Chinese involvement. What that exactly was, I can't say. The most plausible scenario I have read is that China sent partially finished parts to NV and they were final built there.
One thing that I think may be throwing the dating of these guns off, is that damn star. If there weren't two different stampings, I bet nobody would be questioning the serial dating.
Here's some food for thought about that "fat star" on the early NVs...... We also see the "fat star" stamped on North Korean guns too....and North Korea NEVER used that version of a star. That fat star on the early guns could have just simply been how the punchmaker made it, or it could have been leftover punches from earlier guns, and at some point someone said "we really shouldn't be using that star", and had a more correct punch made.
It's really all just speculation, but healthy discussion is what brings out new facts and ideas!
Partially made in NV makes absolutely no sense what so ever to me.
1) Its a logistical nightmare
2) Its the equivalent of dropping the Kurds M249s in a million pieces and tellling them to work on it....
3) Down the ole trail the parts go and ONE freaking yack carting the gasblocks takes a hit, welp... Guess not a single one of them gets made now!
4) NV was able to CRUDELY alter other weapons but thats it.... They literally had ZERO history of producing firearms.
5) China obviously was fully capable of sending completed guns by looking at all the normally marked chinese guns found there.... Why screw with a working process?
6) Part of the evidence they didnt produce or assemble them is the simple fact there is NO evidence what so ever to support they did!
7) My favorite.... These guns have been looked at in great detail by machinist, engineers, mechanics, nuke designers..... EVERY PART OF THE GUNS ARE OF CHINESE MANUFACTUR. Every part, every milling process.... ALL OF IT.
8 ) Second fav... There are indisputable inspection stamps found on the Chinese guns AND the nva property marked guns which tell us they originate from the same place.
All this compared to..... Rolling thunder chicken. "There must be some secret plant that was chruning out exact milled copies of the sks when an AK can be made from a shovel head" is in mho laughable.
Quote from: running-man on September 12, 2016, 07:03:30 PM
Quote from: Phosphorus32 on September 12, 2016, 06:21:48 PM
Yeah, a much better explanation than a 500 pounder from an F-105 took out the SKS production hut. This scheme seems plausible and more probable than the Rolling Thunder hypothesis, with the corollary of "they only made a few SKSs per day, because, uh...". However, using a year-month designation early in the year, then switching to a 6 million SN in June, is still not entirely satisfying.
I entirely agree Jon; that's why I've never posted it publicly before. I don't know, honestly, that I entirely believe it myself. It may just be an unused block of numbers that someone cobbled together. It may be some other type of Chinese numbering system we haven't cracked yet. It may be that the guns were indeed built in Vietnam and the numbering scheme is theirs and not the Chinese. It may even be that they are '62 through '65 built guns (though that 'YY' prefixed S/N type wasn't first seen until 1970, I have no examples of *anything* like this prior to that anyhow). I'm not saying it is one or the other, I just wanted to point out that there are other plausible, but possibly not probable, and certainly not provable alternate hypotheses out there. Anyone who spouts off that the reason the guns stopped in '65 is "because of rolling thunder. Q.E.D.", offers no disclaimer that it's a personal hypothesis, and also offers no data to back up any claim has zero credibility in my book. I'm much less likely to listen to anything else that person has to say.
I didn't mean to "damn with faint praise" before. I still like your proposal the best of anything that's been offered to date, especially within the context of the other features pointing to this time period of Type 56 production.
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on September 12, 2016, 07:48:57 PM
"There must be some secret plant that was churning out exact milled copies of the SKS when an AK can be made from a shovel head"
quote of the day rofl chuckles1
Here is presumably one of their underground facilities but I can't source the photo. Supposedly it's in a book about the Vietnam War but I can't confirm it. Other than workshops this is the only photo I have seen of any facility during the Vietnam War. Doesn't prove anything regarding this topic but does show some level of machining, assuming the photo is authentic.
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Vietnam/Vietnam%20Underground%20Factory_zpsowfxcc5l.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Vietnam/Vietnam%20Underground%20Factory_zpsowfxcc5l.jpg.html)
I'm confident they had some level of repair ability. thumb1
Regardless, that's still a neat picture!
I see a bunch of helmets stacked up and no guns.... dntknw1
But if that's a barrel on the lathe.... Thats one big azz barrel.
Interesting discussion but I have one observation for what it's worth. We tend to inject our thought processes into the Oriental mind of say 50 years ago and this is ridiculous in the extreme in my opinion. We can not know anything at all of what these folks would or might have thought...pure conjecture and nothing more.
I think this may be causing some confusion in the great research going on in this membership.
Quote from: Dannyboy53 on September 13, 2016, 11:59:53 AM
Interesting discussion but I have one observation for what it's worth. We tend to inject our thought processes into the Oriental mind of say 50 years ago and this is ridiculous in the extreme in my opinion. We can not know anything at all of what these folks would or might have thought...pure conjecture and nothing more.
I think this may be causing some confusion in the great research going on in this membership.
Can you please be a little more specific regarding what aspects the Western mindset is being injected into the research? Thanks.
Quote from: montigre on September 13, 2016, 12:08:59 PM
Can you please be a little more specific regarding what aspects the Western mindset is being injected into the research? Thanks.
More simply put...we can not presume to think like those folks did half a century ago. Please note I did not say "injected into the research"!
I discovered the reason for the fat star stamp. The stamp is based on the National flag of North Vietnam which was the fat star or the Viet Minh flag used from 1945 to 1954.
(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac131/gail_peterson1/Misc/National%20Flag%20of%20North%20Vietnam%20used%20from%201945%20to%201955_zps4a09mmhf.png)
From 1955/56 to the present, the more streamlined star became the politically accepted emblem
(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac131/gail_peterson1/Misc/National%20Flag%20of%20North%20Vietnam%20used%20from%201955%20to%201976_zps9wn3jivx.png)
Reverting back to the gunbroker auction description which started this thread (Rolling Thunder flattened the factory in 1965, and then the M21 replaced the Star-1): No 'physical' evidence exists for the factory or the bombing of the factory. But there are physical attributes of the M21 which would preclude its production as post-1965.
Now, the what if: Did North Vietnam simply have a contractual agreement with China for these specifically Star-1 stamped guns with sequential serials, and just didn't have enough coin to buy lots of them?
The best thing about this topic is that it can never really be answered. And exploring all the theories makes for interesting observations.
Personally, I don't believe that the different stars on the receivers correspond to the date change of the flag. It makes zero sense for that point in time. The flag change was 54 into 55. The Chinese weren't even making the SKS in 54, and they were just learning to make them in 55 and not into their own full production till 56. So why would the Chinese be making another country their own SKS, when they themselves are just starting to learn to make it? Makes no sense.
I think people may be looking too much into the star differences. Remember what I said earlier.... the North Korean guns have a fat star stamp on their stocks, and they NEVER used a fat star for anything.
Now I've seen people mention that the Chinese switched to short lug in 65, so why are the "65" NVAs long lug if they were built in 65?
Well, think about it.... There's only a couple thousand estimated NVAs for each year. Jianshe is switching to short lug barrels, but still have a few thousand longs left. Wouldn't it make sense to use them up on a gun you're making for someone else?
Just some food for thought :)
I dont personally put too much on the fat vs sharp star. I just think its interesting.