Army equipment that should have seen service

[marathag]

What shield?

M20 Super-Bazooka - Modern Firearms

M20 Super-bazooka, right side view M20a1B1 Super-bazooka, left side view M20a1B1 Super-bazooka, barrel disassembled Firing M20 Super-Bazooka Caliber 89 mm / 3.5” Type Rocket launcher Overall length 1524 mm Weight 6.5 kg empty 5.9 kg empty (M20B1) Max. effective range ~300 meters Armor...

modernfirearms.net

Facemask

12 seconds

 

[yulzari]

but for cost of machines are under Lend Lease, so UK would be getting a real bargain after the war.

no they would not. Lend Lease items went straight back to US ownership very soon after the war. Look at British tank units in 1946. See any Shermans? Look at FAA squadrons in 1946. No Corsairs, Gannets or Tarpons. If anything was kept it had to be paid for in US dollars which were needed to feed the civil population (in Germany as well as UK).A few special needs items were kept and paid for but the bulk went back to the USA or were destroyed.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Put crudely Tanks, Aircraft, trucks ect are consumable items with a limited lifespan so it made sense not to pay to keep them. Machine tools however are capital investments that are worth spending scares resources on.

 

[McPherson]

Note the mods.

 

[Magniac]

I'm going to say that Britain should have built the M1 Carbine under licence instead of the No. 5 Mk 1 so called Jungle Carbine... heavy recoil and poor accuracy

How much would that cost? The No 5 used existing tooling

Let us look at that.
a. was there a need for a carbine? or other < 200 meter semi-auto weapon? (Yes.)
b. did Britain have one? (STEN, maybe?)
c. Was a lightened SMLE a solution?

For a No 5 or No 6 line of bolt action rifles that are more user friendly than the overpowered .303 carbine, but still uses the same manufacturing specs for literally everything other than the barrel,

.303/25 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

6mm Musgrave - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No, not comparable to the semi-autos for rate of fire, but the ballistics of 100 grains at roughly 2500 fps, in either .243 or .257, that you'd be getting from carbine length barrels, is superior to any 7.62x33 load (let alone 9x19 or 9x25), without being as bruising as the 175 @ 2250 that the .303 generated in the OTL jungle carbine .

 

[Deleted member 1487]

For a No 5 or No 6 line of bolt action rifles that are more user friendly than the overpowered .303 carbine, but still uses the same manufacturing specs for literally everything other than the barrel,

.303/25 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

6mm Musgrave - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No, not comparable to the semi-autos for rate of fire, but the ballistics of 100 grains at roughly 2500 fps, in either .243 or .257, that you'd be getting from carbine length barrels, is superior to any 7.62x33 load (let alone 9x19 or 9x25), without being as bruising as the 175 @ 2250 that the .303 generated in the OTL jungle carbine .

A .25 cal 131 grain on a .303 case would be a killer:

Bullets – High BC 25 Caliber – Blackjack Bullets

 

[McPherson]

An impressive runoff, it's amazing America has won so many wars. What nation do you think has a better record of military procurement, logistics, and strategic planning? By the way I must admit I can't spell to save my life, but I think it's spelled America, and Americans.

Breaking it down by category.... WWII era

Military procurement depends on what roles/missions/methods time periods is, so that general question is extremely case sensitive.

WW II tanks, artillery (includes control systems for ground, naval and AAA) and motorized systems.

Hard to beat the Stuart/Sherman/Jackson combo. American trucks were golden. Artillery; tubes and rockets with control systems... American, Just the equipment... RUSSIANs.

Small arms as a class set.

The Czechs, but they are functionally removed as they are 1938ed. Next best? Probably the British, but they take mid-war to get there. I think American gear is good enough like Russian gear, but it could have been better if 1933-1935 programs (Ruger machine gun, an improved Brandt mortar, and a more refined Garand) had been available. One sore spot is grenades. US ones are NTG.

Warships.

Americans without a doubt class for class and method for method are the Wally standard. The Japanese are so close I would consider it a coin flip.

Aircraft technical>
Across the line, the coin toss is British or American. The Russians fielded some goodn gear but it was not watts supported or as efficient in burden and in flight characteristics as the Wally gear. Special case: bombers... British for the aircraft and the conventional bombs and aiming systems for TAC-AIR and strategic bombing.

Aircraft use>
Despite the smattering of one offs and specialist missions for which the RAF is justifiably famous, they were LOUSY at the air campaign. USAAF, despite its numerous faults, was the best of the air forces in WWII in this regard late with the Japanese being the best early. This is not even debatable. They, both, had their priorities right when they finally got it together (USAAF in 1944). Kill the enemy air force (as in the trained aircrews in battle.) first and then go after the enemy infrastructure at the bottlenecks. The RAF tried to avoid this problem in Europe by night bombing. Kannhuber nixed that, then the USAAF 8th nixed his night-fighter force along with the day-fighters in Feb, 1944..
In the Pacific; it was the 5th USAAF, New Zealanders and especially the Australians who got it done.

Strategic planning and logistics (The two are inseparable.) in this case set is RAINBOW 5. It was the actual allied plan that won the war. The British before it, did not even have one. The Russians were ad-hocked up to their bleeding eyeballs. Once everyone Wally and co-belligerent (Russians), got on the same planning set and tailored their inputs and ops to it, that meant the Axis were doomed. It is not strictly an American Plan by any sense as the myths have it, but an Anglo-American one with a LOT of US Army industrial planning input into the op-art nuts and bolts and a lot of British objectives that dovetailed with American (USN ABC staff talks in 1941.) naval planning for Black and Orange.

 

[mudhead]

I'm going to say that Britain should have built the M1 Carbine under licence instead of the No. 5 Mk 1 so called Jungle Carbine.

My father was issued a Mk 1(RAF groundcrew, in India). Once fired, never forgotten. They were "encouraged" to render them u/s.

He got a Sten instead: much better for blowing shitehawks off the cookhouse roof, and for taking along on black market runs, just in case.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I would suggest that the U.S. Army in WWII make the 2.36" Bazooka a little bigger. It doesn't even have to be the post war 3.5" model, that had too big a back blast, just 3" would have been enough. The 2.36" had an ideal penetration of 4", the 3.5" was 11", a 3" might have been 6" which should have been enough to penetrate almost all German tanks, at most angles. They could have thought of putting slat, or cage armor on tanks. They already understood the advantages of spaced armor, slat, or cage armor shouldn't have been such a great leap. The army should have used the navy version of the 3"50 in the anti-tank role, higher muzzle velocity, and heavier shell. An M-1 Rifle converted to a 20 round magazine feed, rather then the 8 round striper clip. Some M-1's were field converted to that configuration, it should have been the factory manufactured standard. They should have had a sturdier 20 round magazine for both the improved M-1, and the BAR, the one they had was pretty flimsy.

Extending to the USAAF they should have just manufactured the 20mm Hispano Cannon has is. Army ordnance decided the gun needed a few MMs more free space in the firing chamber. This led to many misfires, and jams, making the American 20mm unreliable. The USAAF wanted to replace the inboard 50 cal on the P-51 with a 20mm, and the P-38 would have been more effective with a reliable cannon. The Navy wanted to mount 20mm cannon on their late war fighters. The F4U-1C Corsair was armed with 4 cannon, instead of 6 machineguns. The cannon had jamming, and freezing problems. The jamming problem would have been avoided altogether, and the freezing problem was corrected with gun heaters. The RAF, Luftwaffe, Red Air Force, JAAF/IJNAF all graduated to cannon armament, only the Americans were stuck with machineguns, we even went into the Korean war with machinegun armed fighters. It wasn't necessary.

I am not convinced that the m1 would have been a better rifle had it been fitted for BAR mags

Reloading an M1 with the enbloc clip takes just a few seconds - and ammo management is simpler as the ammo comes already packed into the en bloc clips which do not need to be retained after use unlike a magazine

With modern webbing for magazines and stuff (allowing for rapid magazine changes etc) it makes sense but back then not so much.

How heavy was the 3"/50?

Ahh the HS404 saga - Col Chinn USMC does a masterful job of explaining what happened - basically they started with the Headspace being 1/8th to much - 20mm weapons tipping over into Artillery weapons and not machine guns per se with a corresponding greater tolerances - and despite people like he, the UK and the US Ammo manufactures telling BuOrd what the problem was and the weapons being unreliable due to light strikes in operation they did not listen until eventually meeting them all halfway and reducing it to 1/16th.

People like the good Col were obliged to pack them with grease and add washers etc where they shouldn't have had to in order to make them work for the navy and of course in the USAAF Lightning there was an electric motor driven re-cocking device for its single 20mm cannon.

 

[Father Maryland]

I still like the idea of a

M1
-Chambered in the original .276 cartridge
- Give it a mounting rail for basic optics and flashlights
- Give it the option of a underslung grenade launcher (like a proto M203) instead of the muzzle mounted rifle grenade launcher.
- Replace the en bloc stripper clip system with a 20 round detachable magazine

I also think the US should have copied the disposable Panzerfaust system. Not to replace a improved bazooka but to supplement it. Something cheap and light enough that every infantryman can theoretically carry one. Good for anti tank/ anti armored vehicle roles but also to replace/ supplement satchel charges for attacking enemy pillboxes and fortifications. Maybe create a fragmentation sleeve for anti infantry use.

 

[McPherson]

I still like the idea of a

M1
-Chambered in the original .276 cartridge
- Give it a mounting rail for basic optics and flashlights
- Give it the option of a underslung grenade launcher (like a proto M203) instead of the muzzle mounted rifle grenade launcher.
- Replace the en bloc stripper clip system with a 20 round detachable magazine

I also think the US should have copied the disposable Panzerfaust system. Not to replace a improved bazooka but to supplement it. Something cheap and light enough that every infantryman can theoretically carry one. Good for anti tank/ anti armored vehicle roles but also to replace/ supplement satchel charges for attacking enemy pillboxes and fortifications. Maybe create a fragmentation sleeve for anti infantry use.

1. As Gun Jesus points out, the problem with the early .276 Garand was the primer initiated action from the cartridge*1. it would not work reliably in a self loading rifle and it is TERRIBLE for a machine gun. The idea was idiotic on the face of it.

^1 The idea of primer initiated action is that primer ignition gas is tapped out of the cartridge base to impinge upon and do work to the bolt face to cause the bolt carrier body to function directly as the operating cycle first impulse piston to drive the cyclic.

2. Flashlight on. Shoot me!

3. The Federal Riot Gun system needed refinement before that could happen.

4. Better person who knows guns more than I answered that one, but MUD and lousy magazines seen on the BAR mean the enbloc was the correct call.

5. Disposable tube = booby trap and ready made IED container. Reusable launch tube = dedicated RPG man in the squad.

 

[Father Maryland]

1. As Gun Jesus points out, the problem with the early .276 Garand was the primer initiated action from the cartridge*1. it would not work reliably in a self loading rifle and it is TERRIBLE for a machine gun. The idea was idiotic on the face of it.

^1 The idea of primer initiated action is that primer ignition gas is tapped out of the cartridge base to impinge upon and do work to the bolt face to cause the bolt carrier body to function directly as the operating cycle first impulse piston to drive the cyclic.

2. Flashlight on. Shoot me!

3. The Federal Riot Gun system needed refinement before that could happen.

4. Better person who knows guns more than I answered that one, but MUD and lousy magazines seen on the BAR mean the enbloc was the correct call.

5. Disposable tube = booby trap and ready made IED container. Reusable launch tube = dedicated RPG man in the squad.

Plenty of countries and armies use disposable rocket launchers of some sort. The prospect of the enemy using captured tubes as IED seems like it would only be a danger in a COIN situation and not a conventional war. In OTL American forces made widespread use of captured panzerfausts even on a official level for some divisions.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I still like the idea of a

M1
-Chambered in the original .276 cartridge
- Give it a mounting rail for basic optics and flashlights
- Give it the option of a underslung grenade launcher (like a proto M203) instead of the muzzle mounted rifle grenade launcher.
- Replace the en bloc stripper clip system with a 20 round detachable magazine

Should have gone with a 6.5mm bullet at the most. 6mm would have been more ideal, but too far ahead of the time.
They even extensively tested it and found that their 125 grain design was the most lethal in the pig board testing in the 1920s. No reason they should have gone bigger for a rifle design. The .30-06 had it's role as an MG round, but an LMG would have been much better as a 6.5mm cartridge. The could even use the .30-06 case chopped down to about 47mm...just like the modern Creedmoor SOCOM is adopting.

6.5mm Creedmoor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In October 2017, U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) tested the performance of 7.62×51mm NATO (M118LR long-range 7.62×51mm NATO load), .260 Remington, and 6.5mm Creedmoor cartridges out of SR-25, M110A1, and Mk 20 Sniper Support Rifle (SSR) rifles. SOCOM determined 6.5 Creedmoor performed the best, doubling hit-probability at 1,000 m (1,094 yd), increasing effective range by nearly-half, reducing wind drift by a third, with less recoil than 7.62×51mm NATO rounds.
.....
Because the two cartridges (7.62×51mm NATO and 6.5 mm Creedmoor) have similar dimensions, the same magazines can be used, and a rifle can be converted with just a barrel change. This led to its adoption and fielding by special operations snipers to replace the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge in their semi-automatic sniper rifles, planned in early 2019. In response to SOCOM's adoption, Department of Homeland Security also decided to adopt the round.[30][31]

 

[Ramontxo]

GI original mags were mostly fine. Postwar high cap magazines are where the problems were at

It may be so but I have read that the magazines were so bad that actually a lot of them were placed to be available for the individual soldiers when they need to change theirs. Maybe I am wrong, or as you say this is a postwar thing (thought it is not immediately evident why a peacetime build should be worse than the wartime one but stranger things has happened)

 

[Belisarius II]

I still like the idea of a

M1
-Chambered in the original .276 cartridge
- Give it a mounting rail for basic optics and flashlights
- Give it the option of a underslung grenade launcher (like a proto M203) instead of the muzzle mounted rifle grenade launcher.
- Replace the en bloc stripper clip system with a 20 round detachable magazine

I also think the US should have copied the disposable Panzerfaust system. Not to replace a improved bazooka but to supplement it. Something cheap and light enough that every infantryman can theoretically carry one. Good for anti tank/ anti armored vehicle roles but also to replace/ supplement satchel charges for attacking enemy pillboxes and fortifications. Maybe create a fragmentation sleeve for anti infantry use.

My only comment would be your too much ahead of your time. You want a LAW like they had in the Vietnam War. The Americans might have been able to produce them, but I don't think they thought they had a need. With some notable exceptions U.S. Infantry didn't have to face that many German Tanks. AT Guns, Recoilless Rifles, Artillery support, and lots of Bazooka teams seemed like enough. The Germans needed lots of Panzerfausts, and Panzerschrecks because they were under enormous pressure from tanks, and had less support from heavy weapons then the Americans did. Post war your 100% in the money.

A lot of people on the board seem to think the M-1 fired an overpowered round. A 7.62mm by 63mm round was big, but that was the mindset of everyone in WWII. Perhaps the post war NATO 7.62mm by 51mm round would have been better, but everyone still wanted a 30cal rifle, the MP-44 had to show the way to intermediate cartridges. Many soldiers thought the M-1 Carbine had too weak of a cartridge, no one wanted to be outgunned. With an underslung grenade launcher again your ahead of your time, no one seems to have thought of it. I know American Police had teargas launchers, but perhaps the army didn't think the technology had the power, and range of the Rifle Grenade.

 

[Belisarius II]

Should have gone with a 6.5mm bullet at the most. 6mm would have been more ideal, but too far ahead of the time.
They even extensively tested it and found that their 125 grain design was the most lethal in the pig board testing in the 1920s. No reason they should have gone bigger for a rifle design. The .30-06 had it's role as an MG round, but an LMG would have been much better as a 6.5mm cartridge. The could even use the .30-06 case chopped down to about 47mm...just like the modern Creedmoor SOCOM is adopting.

6.5mm Creedmoor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The biggest problem with the Creedmoor today would be changing the NATO standard. That might add up to 50 armies needing to convert, no easy task.

 

[Crowbar Six]

no they would not. Lend Lease items went straight back to US ownership very soon after the war. Look at British tank units in 1946. See any Shermans? Look at FAA squadrons in 1946. No Corsairs, Gannets or Tarpons. If anything was kept it had to be paid for in US dollars which were needed to feed the civil population (in Germany as well as UK).A few special needs items were kept and paid for but the bulk went back to the USA or were destroyed.

As soon as the war finished the FAA pushed every US Lend Lease aircraft over the side of their carriers.

 

[Crowbar Six]

The biggest problem with the Creedmoor today would be changing the NATO standard. That might add up to 50 armies needing to convert, no easy task.

Creedmoor is based on 7.62 x 51 so the only change needed would be a new barrel and changing the sights, they can even use existing 7.62 magazines.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

So for what I have read the one issue with the M1 carbine was its crap magazine. Now the UK say gets it (and its machinery) under Lend/Lease and make it for the RA but with a magacine derived from that of the BREN. After the war they pay the 10% residual value and kept it instead of the Sterling . Experiments are made for a new caliber and bullet but they are not ready for the Korea war. ETC...

The Carbine Magazine was very lightly built so would not survive rough treatment. But they were supplied in staggeringly high numbers and new ones were always available and according to an interview I saw on Forgotten Weapons with Ken Hackerthorn the GIs would simply replace magazines every few weeks or as often as needed.

I suspect a lot of the legacy around the magazine was post war private owners who would continue to reuse the magazines or other military who did not possess the same logistical capabilities who also reused magazines and experienced reliability problems as a result.

The British who retained a far more stringent attitude towards things like 'throwing away magazines' especially if the soldier had to sign for it might make a more robust magazine if they fully adopted the gun?

 

[McPherson]

The British who retained a far more stringent attitude towards things like 'throwing away magazines' especially if the soldier had to sign for it might make a more robust magazine if they fully adopted the gun?

Very likely. Example is the BSA made Bren gun with its better quality magazine than the Cz. vz. 30. The logic was that the mag was part of the weapon and a signed for item. In hypothetical US service the mags, might have been throwaways. In actual German service the mags often were,

Which process was more practical? The M1 carbine, the whole weapon, was expected to be a rear echelon weapon (hah.) so the whole item was likely to be expendable. How did that work out? Not as expected. When an army shows up with 5 million semi-auto battle rifles planned and the likely long arm actually deployed and used is 6 million popgun carbines still getting the job done, somebody should have noticed, maybe "we goofed?" postwar.

M14 I'm looking at you,

(Cough Winchester Model 1907 and Model 1910.) should have been a further warning.

Thou shalt not torque off the great John Moses Browning.