Deleted member 1487
From what I've been able to find they did that because of the better very long range performance for MGs and because they could hold more tracer compound, which gave them greater spotting range.
WI: US has not adopted a semi-auto rifle by its entry to WWII
- Thread starter SealTheRealDeal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- world war 2
SwampTiger
Banned
Correct. Although, I do not understand why they then went to the larger cartridge for a rifle, when they had a perfectly fine cartridge. Its not like they were terribly concerned by logistics. 
A worse small arm won’t change the propensity of PLAF / PAVN to refuse combat. They refused engagement because they achieved better results against ARVN. It will primarily change situations where engagement can’t be refused, or a testing operation is being conducted.
To return to the OP (and I am one of those who have digressed).
If the US Army had not adopted a semi automatic rifle for mid-WW2 (i.e 1942) it would have exposed their lack of any effective LMG at platoon level. Either an overblown semi automatic rifle (BAR) or a large, heavy misused MMG (Browning M1919). Both have their good points but are not LMGs. In British Home Defence use the BAR was eventually banned from use in automatic fire mode under any circumstances.
They would not have the time to develop, test and make their own new LMG and the bolt action M1903 was a perfectly adequate bolt action rifle so the likelihood is that they would adopt an existing proven LMG even if it were a foreign design. As such (and drawing upon the British Bren v BESA experience) one already drawn in Imperial units would be the simplest and in 1942 there is Inglis across the border with Bren guns that would be easily reworked to .30-06 looking at their 7.92 Mauser versions. Possibly a chrome lined barrel Besal if you want machining simplicity for rapid production. Yes there are FN, Swedish, Polish etc. BAR variants but essentially these were so different evolutions that they had little actual BAR in them. Inglis is making Brens just next door. Another, less likely, candidate is the Indian Army Vickers-Berthier although India went over to making Brens too. At least the USA could claim them to be French to assuage the anti-British sentiments that existed at the time.
If the US Army had not adopted a semi automatic rifle for mid-WW2 (i.e 1942) it would have exposed their lack of any effective LMG at platoon level. Either an overblown semi automatic rifle (BAR) or a large, heavy misused MMG (Browning M1919). Both have their good points but are not LMGs. In British Home Defence use the BAR was eventually banned from use in automatic fire mode under any circumstances.
They would not have the time to develop, test and make their own new LMG and the bolt action M1903 was a perfectly adequate bolt action rifle so the likelihood is that they would adopt an existing proven LMG even if it were a foreign design. As such (and drawing upon the British Bren v BESA experience) one already drawn in Imperial units would be the simplest and in 1942 there is Inglis across the border with Bren guns that would be easily reworked to .30-06 looking at their 7.92 Mauser versions. Possibly a chrome lined barrel Besal if you want machining simplicity for rapid production. Yes there are FN, Swedish, Polish etc. BAR variants but essentially these were so different evolutions that they had little actual BAR in them. Inglis is making Brens just next door. Another, less likely, candidate is the Indian Army Vickers-Berthier although India went over to making Brens too. At least the USA could claim them to be French to assuage the anti-British sentiments that existed at the time.
I agree that if its 1942 they would just keep the 1903. However at that point, given their behavior and timeline for development, I would proffer that they would stick with the BAR, maybe with some minor tinkering as long as it did not impact production. While not great they are serviceable and would just go with what they have. I would think they would look to boost production with higher numbers per squad. If they break platoons into three man fire man fire teams that generates a lot of firepower.
And Czech machine guns that the Canadians are producing for the Chinese are somehow better in this regard? Even the Swedish belt-feed mechanism they used on some BARs could have been retrofitted onto any existing BAR.
I don't know what could possibly make you think the this isn't a BAR and that it would be easier to completely switch to the Bren.
Deleted member 1487
It might have been a reasonably fine weapon if they just adopted the Belgian improvements of the weapon. They effectively made it a LMG instead of an autorifle.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/light-machine-guns/fn-model-d-bar/
That or adopt the Lewis Assault Phase Rifle.
Bren was a decent piece of weponry, however there is an US design that pre-dates 1942, namely the 1941 Johnson light machinegun.
Yes if this occurred in 1938/1939 when they were upgrading the BAR. Indeed, the could well justify the additional cost for development and retooling with the cancellation of the Garand programs.
However, if this is occurring in 1941, they are already in full wartime ramp up mode. On an operational management basis, with the exception of tooling potentially for the stock/pistol grip, they aren't going to change anything, just go with full tilt production.
OT but every time someone types Lewis Phase Rifle my brain reads that as Lewis Phased Plasma Rifle...
Deleted member 1487
Yes, and he did sell some to the US Army as well as Marines (the Marines liked them more apparently), but it came about too late to really get US Army acceptance. They had already settled on the BAR and were rearming with it already by the time that Johnson introduced the prototype. By 1940 the US Army was locked in with what was already in mass production. Had it been around in 1938 it would have had a chance to replace the BAR, but 1940 is too late to get it into mass production for the first model. It also didn't help that it was a complex, high quality weapon that didn't lend itself to mass production, which is why it was restricted to SF units in WW2. The 1944-45 upgraded version was quite good, as it was improved based on combat experience, but that was too late for WW2 of course. The Dror, the Israeli post-war licensed M1941 didn't have a good reputation though and the IDF chose the FN BAR to replace it in the 1950s.
Deleted member 1487
Here is the thing, the US Army actually did buy parts of the FN developments for the BAR for trials and dumped them for the inferior US designed versions (rate reduce mechanism). So they had full access to them in the 1930s, but chose not to act on getting a modern SAW until too late and then they just went with their inferior US designed 'upgrades' to the BAR. Honestly 1939 was probably the latest anything could be adopted, as that was when the US started rearmament and locked in on what they were really going to mass produce.Yes if this occurred in 1938/1939 when they were upgrading the BAR. Indeed, the could well justify the additional cost for development and retooling with the cancellation of the Garand programs.
However, if this is occurring in 1941, they are already in full wartime ramp up mode. On an operational management basis, with the exception of tooling potentially for the stock/pistol grip, they aren't going to change anything, just go with full tilt production.
OT but every time someone types Lewis Phase Rifle my brain reads that as Lewis Phased Plasma Rifle...
Yes, the US really dropped the ball by not adopted the Phased Plasma Rifle. Yet another in a long list of US Army small arms failures.
Alternatively, if the Garand project fails they could have always had Rheinmetall sell them MG 34's chambered for .30-06.
Deleted member 1487
They didn't sell the MG34 design to anyone...but the MG30 was an option with foreign sales.Alternatively, if the Garand project fails they could have always had Rheinmetall sell them MG 34's chambered for .30-06.
What If the M sixteen had been invented in 1940 and massproduced in 1941 for US infantry ?
Deleted member 1487
Technologically the closest you're going to get is the M1 Carbine with a .22 or potentially smaller bullet. The trick is getting the military to buy into the SCHV concept, but then you're still stuck with it being a 2nd line weapon that gets appropriated for front line use unofficially.
The US army spent the interwar years totally sold on the dominance of the rifleman and his personal weapons. That's an absolute rejection of the LMG concept so everything will be an adaptation at the last minute.
The basic squad will be M1903, initially supplemented by BAR, Its only with combat experience that the deficiencies will be shown up but these are tactical issues not the machinery as such. Adding more BAR without the M1 does not really solve this so maybe .30 air cooled MMG as per the airborne organisation. At that point the USMC - who did not have the same mindset and do have the money come wartime will probably be sold on the Johnson both Rifle and LMG. At that point its politics and NIH. I suspect there are enough issues with the Johnson rifle to make it a dubious buy, the LMG though is all around a better bet than the BAR so you would see that occupying the same place and in the same numbers as the BAR as it becomes available.
One thing on allied casualties from small arms, it shows the absence of German Artillery as much as anything.
The basic squad will be M1903, initially supplemented by BAR, Its only with combat experience that the deficiencies will be shown up but these are tactical issues not the machinery as such. Adding more BAR without the M1 does not really solve this so maybe .30 air cooled MMG as per the airborne organisation. At that point the USMC - who did not have the same mindset and do have the money come wartime will probably be sold on the Johnson both Rifle and LMG. At that point its politics and NIH. I suspect there are enough issues with the Johnson rifle to make it a dubious buy, the LMG though is all around a better bet than the BAR so you would see that occupying the same place and in the same numbers as the BAR as it becomes available.
One thing on allied casualties from small arms, it shows the absence of German Artillery as much as anything.
marathag
Banned
The Ljungman and MAS-40 used direct inpingement before 1942(yes, slightly different from an AR) and multi-lug rotating bolt from the Melvin Johnson's Rifle. He later worked with Stoner, that where that came from.
Last thing would be alloy receiver: that is early, but could have been machined from bronze or steel. AR receivers don't need a lot of strength, since the bolt locks into the barrel. AR-10 sized action is big enough for 300 Savage, no problem, and could be sized to 30-06, but that cartridge from a light rifle, even with a steel receiver and in line layout, recoil would be heavy
Deleted member 1487
Mortars were highly prevalent on the German side though, so it isn't as if explosive weapons were absent. Plus in Normandy before the Germans ran out of reserves combat casualties were roughly equal despite the Allied artillery advantage. Arguably you could make the case that the lack of German small arms casualties was the reliance on artillery and air support to make up for their small arms/tactical deficiencies.
Yeah their DI was quite a bit different and the DI system squirted you in the face with the gas impulse. The multi-lug bolt isn't the issue, the expanding gas system was, especially as it required a non-corrosive primer. That and the light weight materials for a rifle.
marathag
Banned
All M1 Carbine ammo issued during WWII was non-corrosive, a US first.
Without the internal piston in the bolt like the AR, cleaning wasn't a problem on the Ljungman, MAS or FN-49