What if NATO decided to adopt the M14 and the M1911A1 in order to standardize weaponry?

[SsgtC]

The Marshall Plan was about stimulating the US economy, as the stipulation was that the money had to be spent in the US. The Euros weren't able to spend due to the massive debt they already had from the war, plus the rebuilding they had to do, so US money being injected into their foreign purchasing budgets did help the Euros, but the goal was to keep US industry producing while their customers recovered.

It also helped lessen the shock to American industry from the number of war orders being cancelled.

 

[fastmongrel]

Pistols have been irrelevant on the battlefield since the American Civil War.

I dont think pistols have ever been relevant on a battlefield. They have throughout history been more about badges of rank or something to grab if your Cavalry Sabre or Lance broke.

The British Army issued me a Hi Power I did the qual course cleaned it, put it away and forgot about it.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I don't remember enough from The Black Rifle as to why US Ordnance would not implement conclusions that they had got from the Korean war.

It was a lot more than just the Korean War. You have to remember that WW2 experience and infantry panels determined the Garand and 7.62mm full powered round were ideal for infantry combat. Korea was looked at as an outlier and it took a heap of testing to finally convince some people that the SCHV round was the way to go. It also didn't hurt that the M16 was thought to be ready to replace the clearly crappy M14 in Vietnam. Even then McNamara had to force it on the US Army because of the entrenched view that the higher powered round was necessary for wounding power, range, and penetration.

It also helped lessen the shock to American industry from the number of war orders being cancelled.

Sort of. By the time the MP was even a factor the war had been over for years.

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

I've read US assessments from WW2 that stated the 9mm parabellum was more effective in the damage it did to the human body. I'd imagine that, besides the cost is the reason it was eventually adopted by the US after they gained a lot more combat experience.

Really? I’ve read something regarding Moros. Don’t get me wrong, the 9mm is an excellent round and one of the most popular cartridges of all time yet due to The Hague Conventions regarding expanding rounds, I would go with a 45.

 

[SsgtC]

I've read US assessments from WW2 that stated the 9mm parabellum was more effective in the damage it did to the human body. I'd imagine that, besides the cost is the reason it was eventually adopted by the US after they gained a lot more combat experience.

Partly. That and literally all our allies used 9mm. At some point, even the US military has to bow to the inevitable and admit that using a common round is just easier for everyone involved.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Really? I’ve read something regarding Moros. Don’t get me wrong, the 9mm is an excellent round and one of the most popular cartridges of all time yet due to The Hague Conventions regarding expanding rounds, I would go with a 45.

The Moro Rebellion was going on before the 9mm Parabellum was even introduced. The US drew different conclusions from their experience there than the Euros and in WW2 apparently the medical examiners who studied wound results determined the 9mm parabellum did more damage due to speed than the slower, heavier .45.

Partly. That and literally all our allies used 9mm. At some point, even the US military has to bow to the inevitable and admit that using a common round is just easier for everyone involved.

I'm sure that didn't hurt.

 

[SsgtC]

The Moro Rebellion was going on before the 9mm Parabellum was even introduced. The US drew different conclusions from their experience there than the Euros and in WW2 apparently the medical examiners who studied wound results determined the 9mm parabellum did more damage due to speed than the slower, heavier .45.

Probably because the 9mm had better penetration than 45ACP. So a deeper wound channel probably. Otherwise the .45 should cause more damage. It makes a bigger hole. And seeing as pistol rounds only use the permanent wound cavity to cause damage to the human body, the .45 would "win" that. But if you're having to punch through web gear, heavy clothing, an arm, etc, then 9mm would have the better performance.

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

Well, I knew that 9mm came out after the .45 ACP, but the two rounds have different philosophies in mind.

And that may be the case regarding the report. Stopping power vs penetration.

 

[SsgtC]

Well, I knew that 9mm came out after the .45 ACP, but the two rounds have different philosophies in mind.

And that may be the case regarding the report. Stopping power vs penetration.

Stopping power doesn't exist in a pistol round. It's honestly a myth. You know how you stop a dude with a pistol round? Put the bullet through his heart or break a major bone like the thigh. Otherwise you're not stopping then until they bleed out

 

[Blue cat]

Hey guys, first of all I would like to say hello and it's a pleasure being on this site. History has always been a passion of mine and over the millennia there's has been events that could have possibly changed if a certain action was partaken, hence the unique field of alternate history. Oh, and also, since this is my first scenario, I would ask for your forgiveness if the question is ill thought out here. I will be perfectly willing to go more in depth with this topic but anyway, here it is:

The all American sweetheart, the M14, a weapon arguably obsolete before it even came off the drawing board, the shortest standard issue rifle ever issued to U.S troops yet revived as a Designated Marksman Rifle for usage in the Global War on Terror.

However, due to a compromise, the American military promised to accept the FN MAG Machine Gun from Fabrique Nationale if the Belguim arms manufacturer would cease to campaign for the FN FAL, and the U.S Ordnance Department sweetens the deal with a contract for producing the proposed rifle as well.

I think it could have been possible for the M14 to be adopted since Italy and West Germany, not to mention France and Greece, were given M1 Garands, thus a switch to a familiar platform just like one of the American reasoning for adopting the M14 in the actual timeline.

In fact, Italy decided to convert their M1s to the BM-59 and West Germany developed the G3 as a result of unable to gain a license to produce FALs domestically.

And to spice the scenario up a notch, Uncle Sam is also suggesting that the M1911A1 in .45 Caliber as the standard handgun in order to stop the charging Red horde in their tracks Again, possible due to the Browning Hipower being in service with some nations and the similarities in design, but I wouldn't be surprised if the European nations would do a case of "Since we adopted the 7.62 instead of .280, are you willing to accept the 9mm?"

Any thoughts so far?

If the U.S. offered the Canadians enough brand new small arms at no charge to equip their entire NATO contingent (along with likely re enforcements from Canada and weapons for training use in Canada etc..) I suspect the Canadians might have considered the offer. I seem to recall reading an account of some deliberations in the 1950's about the Canadians needing to decide between issuing US or UK pattern equipment to their European based forces so perhaps accepting an offer of free brand new U.S. pattern small arms might have been seriously considered, although I suspect the Canadians would have also wanted machine guns chambered in 7.62 x 51 as well to go along with the rifles.

Edit to add:
I suspect a number of other nations would likely want Machine guns to go along with the free M14's. I suspect Large quantities of ammunition would also have made the offers more palatable.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Probably because the 9mm had better penetration than 45ACP. So a deeper wound channel probably. Otherwise the .45 should cause more damage. It makes a bigger hole. And seeing as pistol rounds only use the permanent wound cavity to cause damage to the human body, the .45 would "win" that. But if you're having to punch through web gear, heavy clothing, an arm, etc, then 9mm would have the better performance.

Doesn't Fackler's model say that you need a minimum of 12 inches penetration to guarantee serious damage?

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

Hmm... The neighbor up north is logistically closer to the States than Europe so I’m sure if they’re persuaded (such as what you stated:handing out new out of the box arms at no charge), they’ll be onboard with the proposal.

 

[SsgtC]

Doesn't Fackler's model say that you need a minimum of 12 inches penetration to guarantee serious damage?

I believe so. I know the FBI standard is 12-18" of penetration in calibrated ballistic gel. Most ammo from reputable manufacturers will be somewhere between 14 and 16 inches. Generally on the lower side for 45ACP and on the higher end for 9mm.

 

[Blue cat]

Hmm... The neighbor up north is logistically closer to the States than Europe so I’m sure if they’re persuaded (such as what you stated:handing out new out of the box arms at no charge), they’ll be onboard with the proposal.

Also historically the Canadians issued a heavy barrelled full auto FAL for use at section level so they might be inclined to use a full auto M14 in a similar role. I seem to recall they also converted browning M1919's to 7.62 x 51 so the 7.62 x 51 "machine gun" issue might be easier for the Canadians to solve than it might be for some other nations.

Edit to add:
I suspect the Canadians might still want their own national made in Canada small arms solution for non NATO forces.

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

Well there is the M14E2/M14A1 variant.

And per “Small Arms of the World”, 1985 edition during the 50s/60s/70s the Canucks did have the converted M1919s as their MGs.

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

A Canuck domestically designed Machine Gun would be interesting, although I’m unsure what they would come up with that would rival the FN MAG.

Anyway, back on topic, it seems as if the main issues are the manufacturing process, again most likely due to the post-war economy in the States and the market.

 

[marathag]

I dont think pistols have ever been relevant on a battlefield. They have throughout history been more about badges of rank or something to grab if your Cavalry Sabre or Lance broke.

The British Army issued me a Hi Power I did the qual course cleaned it, put it away and forgot about it.

Was a valid weapon from the Dutch and German Reiters from the 16th Century to the 19thC Dragoons, having multiple pistols, easier to fire(and reload) when in the saddle.

But as soon as repeating carbines were available, little need for them

 

[marathag]

Probably because the 9mm had better penetration than 45ACP. So a deeper wound channel probably. Otherwise the .45 should cause more damage. It makes a bigger hole. And seeing as pistol rounds only use the permanent wound cavity to cause damage to the human body, the .45 would "win" that. But if you're having to punch through web gear, heavy clothing, an arm, etc, then 9mm would have the better performance.

Fighting Moros was a real thing, where lower powered .38 revolvers were far less effective than the old SAA with the 45 Colt.

From the wiki
A typical instance occurred in 1905 and was later recounted by Col. Louis A. LaGarde:

Antonio Caspi, a prisoner on the island of Samar, P.I. attempted escape on Oct. 26, 1905. He was shot four times at close range in a hand-to-hand encounter by a .38 Colt's revolver loaded with U.S. Army regulation ammunition. He was finally stunned by a blow on the forehead from the butt end of a Springfield carbine.[7]


Col. LaGarde noted Caspi's wounds were fairly well-placed: three bullets entered the chest, perforating the lungs. One passed through the body, one lodged near the back and the other lodged in subcutaneous tissue. The fourth round went through the right hand and exited through the forearm.[8]

125 gr. lead round nose, 770 ft/s 165 ft-lbs. Not very impressive, Terrible, even, compared to the 9mm short. So that soured the US Army on '.38' small bores for almost the next 90 years

2nd, the real problem with 9mm Para or Largo or all the rest was with the limitations on lead bullets after 1907, and early autoloaders with FMJ ball for reliable loading

Punch a hole, and then wait for blood loss, unless you get lucky. 45s made slightly larger holes, and would transfer a bit more of the bullets KE to the flesh, but similar problem
Bullets couldn't expand, so little energy would be passed on into the flesh

 

[L4a1]

Shooting SMGs in 45 or 9 past 100 yards is a waste, and at that range, there's not that much difference in drop to matter, esp. on a full auto open bolt burp gun.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Well built 9mm SMG's such as the MP5 (closed bolt), the Sterling, and the Uzi all have an effective range of 200m but then I wouldn't classify them as burp guns, and they are capable of firing semi as well as auto.
The H&K UMP has a claimed effective range of 100m in 9mm, and 65m in .45.

 

[jsb]

Any thoughts so far?

Can I add to the vote,

Why would NATO have adopted anything other than the M1A1 (T20E3) considering the cost of new v simple conversions of the massive WWII stockpile?