AHC: spin-offs from the StG-44 as main players in the Cold war

Right. So how do you get around the problem of the US? Hitler accepting the StG44 earlier? According to a German historian who wrote the most comprehensive history of the STG Hitler's lack of acceptance delayed the weapon by at least 12 months; by the time it was accepted in mid-1944 it was too late to really tool for it effectively and production was limited...but even more so for the ammo, which remained the major bottleneck for the weapon getting fielded.
So perhaps the POD is that Hitler is convinced to order it into production in mid-1943 so that it is the primary arm of the German army by 1944 so when the Allies land in Normandy they face a hellscape of assault rifles, which prove especially devastating in the close in terrain of Normandy. The impression made is then made on on the Americans, who perhaps partner with the Brits on the .270 or .280?

Works for me!
 
So...FN FAL's in .270 for everyone? Any idea of the impact on Korea, the Soviets and the AK47 and Vietnam?

I would go for 'Gods own bang stick' in the .270 and then whatever replaces the Bren (FN MAG) in say 7.62 x 51 and then modify all the Bren's as well :)

As for the impact - well small arms have the smallest impact in battle of all the 'arms' but I would say that it would give 1970s level of firepower to a section/squad in 1950 and allow a soldier thus armed to be sufficiently armed for ranged fire, jungle warfare and FIBUA and would result in less of a golf bag of weapons
 
I would go for 'Gods own bang stick' in the .270 and then whatever replaces the Bren (FN MAG) in say 7.62 x 51 and then modify all the Bren's as well :)

The .270 would've worked just fine even for 21st century duties, and 7.62x51 in the FN MAG is too good to pass.

As for the impact - well small arms have the smallest impact in battle of all the 'arms' but I would say that it would give 1970s level of firepower to a section/squad in 1950 and allow a soldier thus armed to be sufficiently armed for ranged fire, jungle warfare and FIBUA and would result in less of a golf bag of weapons

StG-44 in whatever the caliber the US might accept it will mean no M-16 problems in the 'Nam. Also cancels out the SA-80 debacle for the British army, while UK is still a producer of infantry small arms even today?
The light MG offspring (heavy & longer barrel) is no stretch.
 
If you go for the .270 round then whether you go for the EM2 or the FAL you still adopt the Tanden GPMG it worked fine OTL so keep it ITTL
 
The idea was: German rifle + cartidge that can reasonably fit. Ie. 'classic' assault rifle, not a bulpup. The 7.92 Kurz was 48 mm long, British new ammo was much longer, ergo it will not be an easy fit.

The Brits looked at 8mm Kurz and made some prototype weapons in that calibre but decided there were things about it they didn't like. They didn't like that the the case has a severe case taper , they didn't like the ballistics and determined the optimum cartridge was in .270/.280 with a m/v of around 2700fps and a bullet weight of around 90 grains and had a case length of around 33mm with combat ranges in the 4-500m based on statistical analysis of actual combat in NE Europe and the Far East. The US on the other hand just looked at the Stg44 and was aghast that it wasn't in 30-06 and never really seemed to understand that it is not possible to design a useful fully automatic rifle in a "proper" calibre; they even went so far as to fiddle with their own statistics to justify a fully automatic Garand replacement.
 

Deleted member 1487

As for the impact - well small arms have the smallest impact in battle of all the 'arms' but I would say that it would give 1970s level of firepower to a section/squad in 1950 and allow a soldier thus armed to be sufficiently armed for ranged fire, jungle warfare and FIBUA and would result in less of a golf bag of weapons
Given the historical issues combating the North Koreans/Chinese who were lavished with 'burp guns' and using infiltration/swarm tactics, having a lot more ammo and easier to use weapons might have a pretty significant impact; IOTL the US use of the M16 in Vietnam prompted the USSR to drop the 7.62x39 for the 5.45mm caliber due to the favorable combat performance of the next generation of US weapons compared to the AKM family.
 

Deleted member 1487

If you go for the .270 round then whether you go for the EM2 or the FAL you still adopt the Tanden GPMG it worked fine OTL so keep it ITTL
The issue is the Taden was based on a universal 7mm caliber, which if the .270 is adopted means the Taden isn't going to be required, just a belt fed Bren (or FN MAG) in 7.62x51. IIRC the Taden was a scaled down belt fed Bren anyway.

The Brits looked at 8mm Kurz and made some prototype weapons in that calibre but decided there were things about it they didn't like. They didn't like that the the case has a severe case taper , they didn't like the ballistics and determined the optimum cartridge was in .270/.280 with a m/v of around 2700fps and a bullet weight of around 90 grains and had a case length of around 33mm with combat ranges in the 4-500m based on statistical analysis of actual combat in NE Europe and the Far East. The US on the other hand just looked at the Stg44 and was aghast that it wasn't in 30-06 and never really seemed to understand that it is not possible to design a useful fully automatic rifle in a "proper" calibre; they even went so far as to fiddle with their own statistics to justify a fully automatic Garand replacement.
IIRC from this paper about British rifle development:
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en...86(5d9a29fb-ced6-4d8e-bf3f-987f3db7b5b9).html
They even thought 400 yards was excessive for an infantry rifle and a WW2 study even showed that an 9mm SMG was more often than not able score hits than the standard L-E equipped rifleman!

The US...remained fixated on the cult of the rifleman and penetrative ability of the M1 and full powered 7.62. The 7.62x51 was considered the 'intermediate' new round compared to the .30-06 that wax 7.62x63mm.
 
Here's something I've always wondered about, if the Germans had sent some samples of the STG-44 along with blueprints to Japan and the Japanese decided to produce the gun themselves, what caliber might they have made their version of the gun in?
 

Deleted member 1487

Here's something I've always wondered about, if the Germans had sent some samples of the STG-44 along with blueprints to Japan and the Japanese decided to produce the gun themselves, what caliber might they have made their version of the gun in?
Probably 7.7mm like they did with their Garand knockoff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_4_rifle
That way they minimize changes due to a major caliber shift.
 

Deleted member 1487

OK but were talking about an assault rifle here.
I know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.7×58mm_Arisaka
Basically it was thought the wider heavier bullets would be more lethal. Part of it was the longer ranger abilities of the larger rounds, part of it was perceived lethality. They would probably consider it similar to the idea behind the 9mm or .45: bigger and slower is better than lighter and fast. The SCHV concept was something that only came of age much later against all orthodoxy at the time. The US developers were ahead of the curve there. The US and UK understood the 6.5mm to be ballistically better, but the 7mm more lethal and a better blend of ballistics and wounding power overall when testing in the interwar period. The Japanese, already having the 6.5mm were overly impressed with the 7.92mm heavy MGs the Chinese had from the Germans compared to their own 6.5mm rounds, which seems to have been confirmed when jungle fighting against the US and UK later on. So the Japanese apparently only saw the benefits of what they didn't have (grass is always greener).
 
I know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.7×58mm_Arisaka
Basically it was thought the wider heavier bullets would be more lethal. Part of it was the longer ranger abilities of the larger rounds, part of it was perceived lethality. They would probably consider it similar to the idea behind the 9mm or .45: bigger and slower is better than lighter and fast. The SCHV concept was something that only came of age much later against all orthodoxy at the time. The US developers were ahead of the curve there. The US and UK understood the 6.5mm to be ballistically better, but the 7mm more lethal and a better blend of ballistics and wounding power overall when testing in the interwar period. The Japanese, already having the 6.5mm were overly impressed with the 7.92mm heavy MGs the Chinese had from the Germans compared to their own 6.5mm rounds, which seems to have been confirmed when jungle fighting against the US and UK later on. So the Japanese apparently only saw the benefits of what they didn't have (grass is always greener).
I can't picture an STG-44 with a 30 rd. mag in 7,7, maybe a 15 magazine?
 
I can't picture an STG-44 with a 30 rd. mag in 7,7, maybe a 15 magazine?

There is probably nothing to 'picture' - StG-44 was designed around an intermediate cartridge. The Japanese/British 7.7 was a full power cartridge, that will need a rifle size of FG-42 to use it.
 

Deleted member 1487

I can't picture an STG-44 with a 30 rd. mag in 7,7, maybe a 15 magazine?
The StG44 had a 30 round mag with 7.92mm bullets. I'd imagine the 7.7mm intermediate would be slightly wider and shorter than the 7.62x39 rounds.
Wait are you saying full sized 7.7mm or 6.5mm? Why would they rather than using an intermediate caliber? Otherwise they'd be better off just making their knock off Garand.
 
Two comments, the tanden mg was originally designed for the 0.27 cartridge it was only the intransigence of the US army that forced the change to 7mm. If the EM2/Rifle No9 had continued into service in the 0.27 calibre then the GPMG to go with it would have been using the same cartridge. As to the 6.5mm Ariska, it was a semi-rimmed cartridge and also a little overpowered for full auto fire.
 
The StG44 had a 30 round mag with 7.92mm bullets. I'd imagine the 7.7mm intermediate would be slightly wider and shorter than the 7.62x39 rounds.
Wait are you saying full sized 7.7mm or 6.5mm? Why would they rather than using an intermediate caliber? Otherwise they'd be better off just making their knock off Garand.

Well so long as they keep those Anti Aircraft sights

arisakasights_1.jpg
 
Top