marathag
Banned
Because using the year of adoption, was just too confusingYou see those wacky maniacs in ordinance seeking to avoid confusion at every turn.
Because using the year of adoption, was just too confusingYou see those wacky maniacs in ordinance seeking to avoid confusion at every turn.
because all the evidence i have points straight to that conclusionNot sure why you'd think that,
That would be ignoring the caliber studies of the 1920s and 30s that assessed lethality and work done on 6.5mm intermediate cartridges in the 1920s.because all the evidence i have points straight to that conclusion
before pederson showed off his rifle and cartridge, all rifle development that i can find is in .30 cal, even though thompsons design could have benefited from using the lighter round
i can't find any competeray writings either defending the .276 or slamming the move back to .30. what i can find in fact compliments the change
and most damning is that in the 50's they still went with 7.62 even though .280 had truman's support and a congress that was willing to pay for it
And from the Pig Board tests, showing that .25 and .27 caliber projectiles were even more damaging than .30he whole reason for the .276 Pedersen was because the Army didn't think it was possible to have a .30-06 automatic rifle close to the specified weight limit (about 9 pounds, the same as the M1903 and M1917), so they were willing to compromise on the cartridge to hit the weight specification. W
Many countries tried to develop an SLR for their standard .30”ish rifle cartridge. All kept hitting the same road block, a overly big and heavy weapon.because all the evidence i have points straight to that conclusion
before pederson showed off his rifle and cartridge, all rifle development that i can find is in .30 cal, even though thompsons design could have benefited from using the lighter round
i can't find any competeray writings either defending the .276 or slamming the move back to .30. what i can find in fact compliments the change
and most damning is that in the 50's they still went with 7.62 even though .280 had truman's support and a congress that was willing to pay for it
AN/M2 'Stinger' type machine gun.
If you want something “good” for WW2 US infantry, adopt the 57mm HEAT rifle grenade for a M72 LAW type weapon.
Yes the tube will be steel and heavy, but a small compact “57mm”.
The main bazooka could then be 75mm, two piece company weapon on a light tripod.
at the cost of decreased barrier penetration, ap effectiveness, and suppressive effectThat would be ignoring the caliber studies of the 1920s and 30s that assessed lethality and work done on 6.5mm intermediate cartridges in the 1920s.
the RSC M1917, 85k+ built, 8mm lebel,The ones that did succeed, were the revolutionary types that suggested a “softer” cartridge.
And from the Pig Board tests, showing that .25 and .27 caliber projectiles were even more damaging than .30
Everything I've read on the subject, the .276 would be for rifles only, not BAR or Brownings, that would remain in .30-06I think the issue was that the military thought "small bore" calibres just didn't have enough space for payloads like tracer, incendiary and explosive rounds, I could not comment if that was a real or imaginary problem.
Too heavy, too long, ergonomically unacceptable as an LMG. One "wants" an FN Model D or a Ruger. Preferably the Ruger. I've thought about box magazine vs. belt feds and I came to the conclusion that a belt fed Ruger (The T23E1 modified BAR which is clearly akin to the later FN MAG.) is probably the right chicken to hatch the American GPMG egg.
The 'Stinger' type gun that I laid out in my post is closer to the M1919A6 (just lighter, with a quick change barrel and open bolt firing) than the actual 'Franken Gun' of OTL. Compared to the T23, this Stinger would probably be equal or slightly lighter in weight (25 pounds vs 26-27 pounds per this thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...of-m14-as-us-armys-battle-rifle.445093/page-2) to the T23. TTL Stinger can also makes use of production lines and techniques that already existed for the M1919 and AN/M2 machine guns.
According to the thread I posted, reducing the length of the T23's receiver and eliminating it's rate reducer would cut down it's weight, maybe to about that of the MG-42 and the Stinger IOTL (c. 25 pounds).
=========================================================All of which makes THIS, more infuriating to me. The BREN is so much a squad flexible asset...
A question about the T10/T23E1 light machine gun?
Anyway, perhaps a portable rocket launcher akin to a British version of an RPG might be a better investment than the PIAT?
17. One has little time. I would prefer the Ruger machine gun as it was designed for the 30.06 USG issued ammunition. However, the fact is that the BAR as improved was available in 1935?
ifle grenade to throwaway rocket launcher?
How about "no."
Try a reusable muzzle loader Hale type rocket launcher like the Russians were clever enough to figure out?
This is an article about traps and mines. It has nothing to do with anti-tank rockets.