WI: US has not adopted a semi-auto rifle by its entry to WWII

SealTheRealDeal

SealTheRealDeal

We've had a few threads about other countries adopting semi-auto rifles and threads about america adopting different rifles/cartridges; so what happens if America's semi-auto rifle program flops sufficiently hard to leave America with no semi-auto rifles, and no plans drawn up for their eventual adoption, by the start of WWII?

Does this significantly impact the performance of American forces (at the tactical level)?

Does this mean the army will have to improve/replace the BAR?
 
Last edited:

Cryhavoc101

Very little. While the Garand was a good rifle the 1903 Springfield was not a bad rifle. Lack of decent LMG might be more keenly felt however?
 

Thoresby

US forces are the weakest of the major powers at the squad level which results in maybe an extra 3-4% US casualties and delays the end of the war by a fortnight. Small arms simply don't matter that much.
 
SealTheRealDeal

SealTheRealDeal

Thoresby said:
US forces are the weakest of the major powers at the squad level which results in maybe an extra 3-4% US casualties and delays the end of the war by a fortnight. Small arms simply don't matter that much.
Click to expand...
I wasn't expecting big changes at the operational level, more at the tactical level (which I guess I'll clarify in the OP).

Also, I think the Italians would still be worse given the massive problems with the Breda 30.
 

sdgottsch

Based on how the US military technology achievement languished in the 1930s and how the US military prepared for WWI, you would see the Springfield Armory crank out even more M1903's simply because the round was plentiful (in storage stocks as well). Before the Garand was "accepted", you would be hard pressed to find an Marine or Soldier wanting of a new rifle.

In fact, the only lesson's learned the US military could take away from the European battles are that the sub-machine gun was very useful in close-quarters fighting (see Finnish and subsequent Russian development) and that none of the major European powers had transitioned from their WWI rifles...so why should we.

Another thing (sorry, adding to this by edit), you have to remember the Marine and Army doctrine had to be changed from the WWI thinking that engaging the enemy from 1000 yards was critical (hence the need for a M1903 to reach out far away to hit an enemy). It was very difficult for range instructors to change their idea that a semi-auto M1 Garand with an effective range of 500 yards was "ok".
 
Last edited:

Thoresby

SealTheRealDeal said:
I wasn't expecting big changes at the operational level, more at the tactical level (which I guess I'll clarify in the OP).

Also, I think the Italians would still be worse given the massive problems with the Breda 30.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't classify Italy as a Major Power. Germany, Japan, the Commonwealth and the USSR would all be better equipped at a squad level and as you said it wouldn't matter much. IMHO I think pre assault rifles you are better off with the German/British doctrine of building the squad around automatic suppressive fire weapons with everyone else primarily acting as ammunition carriers or SMG armed grenadiers.
 

tomo pauk

Peg Leg Pom said:
This would be a more conservative US military so if WWI firepower is good enough for riflemen then pistols are good enough for machine gunners, drivers, radio operators (if any), signallers ect.
Click to expand...

The OP specifically said that POD is "America's semi-auto rifle program flops sufficiently hard to leave America with no semi-auto rifles, and no plans drawn up for their eventual adoption, by the start of WWII". I'm reading it that US Army abandoned semi-autos due to tech problems, not that POD is a much more conservative US Army.
So IMO we'd have more BAR's issued for units to boost their firepower, while M1 Carbine (either in historical form or an alternative) is designed and issued to boost self-defence firepower of non-combat personel; the Carbines trickling out to the regular infantry once they are recognized as useful weapon system.
 

stephen the barbarian

the devil's in the details, remember that melvin johnson is waiting in the wings with his auto rifle and his lmg,
with the m1 rifle cancelled it might be pressed into service
 

Zincwarrior

tomo pauk said:
We'd probably see more BARs and M1 Carbines issued to the 'regular' infantry.
Click to expand...

Might issue the original concept of M-1 carbines (M-2s effectively) as selectfire with 30 round mags.

If neither system had had design work done prior to WW2, I would imagine the US would stick with what they have and, as you noted above, crank BAR production up even more, and adjust TOEs to more Marine platoon style numbers of BARs per platoon. Frankly this just puts them at the same level as everyone else with bolt action riflemen supporting a light machine gun.

the devil's in the details, remember that melvin johnson is waiting in the wings with his auto rifle and his lmg,
with the m1 rifle cancelled it might be pressed into service
Click to expand...
Also a good point. I think both Winchester and Remington had civilian autoloaders as well (not of the BAR/monitor variety but actual rifles). If the same timeline evolves, they have some time and might have taken a hard run at all three.
 
Last edited:

Zincwarrior

Thoresby said:
But with worse sights and a worse round. Mechanically the Mauser system was joint best with the Enfield, with Mauser strength and reliability matching Enfield speed, it's just the Springfield was a pretty bad Mauser.
Click to expand...

Having shot both I'd disagree with that. Found the Springfield was just as good with better sights, but it wasn't a major difference. I liked the Enfield's action more.
 

tomo pauk

Zincwarrior said:
Might issue the original concept of M-1 carbines (M-2s effectively) as selectfire with 30 round mags.

If neither system had had design work done prior to WW2, I would imagine the US would stick with what they have and, as you noted above, crank BAR production up even more, and adjust TOEs to more Marine platoon style numbers of BARs per platoon. Frankly this just puts them at the same level as everyone else with bolt action riflemen supporting a light machine gun.
Click to expand...

... and submachineguns ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top