Army equipment that should have seen service

[Cryhavoc101]

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.

The Bren gun mags being robust enough for continued reuse makes sense due to the section level doctrine of the 25 magazines being carried across the section and then as 'expended' empties farmed out among the riflemen for the fresh ones they carried and refilling the empties from their bandolier of 50 rounds of 303 (in 10 Stripper Clips of 5).

Not so much for individual weapons though.

I think the better solution - maybe - would be for the 30 carbine ammo to be delivered already pre-loaded into 15 round magazines and to be supplied in bandolier of say 6 magazines?

OTL it was supplied in a Bandolier of 12 x 10 round stripper clips for 120 rounds ready to be fed into empties here you would get 'only' 6 x 15 round magazines for 90 rounds with the advantage of them being prepacked and ready for use.

I was going to suggest that they be pre loaded 'at Factory' but I am thinking that Spring life would be a consideration - although maybe not in the context of WW2.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

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.

They're planning on that anyway:

Inside the Army's NEW 6.8mm Next Gen Squad Weapon

Iraq War veteran Chris Cappy gives the Next Generation Squad Weapon rundown. These three companies are in competition to replace the M-16, M-249 SAW and

taskandpurpose.com

It won't be nearly as tough as you think, since the Creedmoor is basically a slightly shortened 7.62 NATO case; you can largely just swap out barrels in existing equipment.
Same thing could apply to some degree in per-WW2 conversions, they could shorten the chamber as they did with .30-06 to 7.62 NATO modifications:

https://peashooter85.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F87849397252

 

[Deleted member 1487]

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.

Huh? They were all testing the 7mm pre-war and wanted that, but couldn't switch before WW2 due to the Great Depression and cost. Post-war the desire was there too. Arguably the .276 Pedersen had more in common with an intermediate cartridge than a full powered battle rifle cartridge; it was only slightly more powerful than the 6.5 Arisaka, which was the Federov cartridge. A 6.5x47mm shortened .30-06 case would work for either the Pedersen or Garand and could easily use a 125 grain bullet with success and much lower recoil and heat build up.

The M1 carbine was too weak, it was meant to be a pistol replacement after all. It was probably good enough though in most cases though with sufficient supporting arms taking the burden off of the rifleman to engage targets beyond 200m. Since in most cases that was the case it was probably sufficient as a general service weapon, though it would have been enhanced in performance by having a smaller caliber bullet on it. The .22 would have been good, but .19-20 would be better given the size and powder load limits of the cartridge. With an M2 AP style bullet it would do the job quite well.

 

[yulzari]

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

Yes. They were offered back but the USA said they did not want them delivered back and to destroy them instead.

 

[Crowbar Six]

Yes. They were offered back but the USA said they did not want them delivered back and to destroy them instead.

More a case of they wanted cash the UK didn't have so they dumped them over the side..

 

[Deleted member 1487]

As an aside the CETME 7.92x40mm was an interesting cartridge, but in doing some napkin math (for what it's worth) a 6.5mm version using the same bullet design but made of sintered iron or a solid steel bullet washed with copper would be about the same weight, have much better sectional density, and probably be able to have longer range and higher muzzle velocity considering it would take up less capacity.

If you don't want something that long a conventional lead cored bullet in 6.5mm but the same weight would allow for even more powder in the case and less OAL, though the range probably wouldn't be as far.

Something like this was experimented with in the 1960s, but using a 5.45x39 sized case:

6.5 X 43 IWK | Cartridge Collector

www.cartridgecollector.net

 

[Father Maryland]

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.

I'd argue that they would have proven quite useful for infantry going up against pillboxes and other fortifications.

In regard to grenade launchers the tech is already their. The "Hi-Lo" principle existed for decades before WW2. It just seems no one had really thought about it. Rifle grenades existed in large numbers. Someone just needed to think of either a stand alone launchers( Which already existed sort of in the form of the Federal Riot gun) or an underslung launcher.

 

[Father Maryland]

More a case of they wanted cash the UK didn't have so they dumped them over the side..

If Roosevelt had survived a bit longer I could see the end of Lend Lease being handled a lot better.

 

[yulzari]

More a case of they wanted cash the UK didn't have so they dumped them over the side..

They were not Britain's property to throw over the side. They reverted to US property and it was the US who wanted them thrown away.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I'd argue that they would have proven quite useful for infantry going up against pillboxes and other fortifications.

In regard to grenade launchers the tech is already their. The "Hi-Lo" principle existed for decades before WW2. It just seems no one had really thought about it. Rifle grenades existed in large numbers. Someone just needed to think of either a stand alone launchers( Which already existed sort of in the form of the Federal Riot gun) or an underslung launcher.

Ahem:

Type 89 grenade discharger - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was the WW2 M79

 

[Father Maryland]

Ahem:

Type 89 grenade discharger - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was the WW2 M79

I'd argue the M79 was more versatile. Though personally I could see the IJA adopting something like the MK18 grenade launcher. Light and relatively simple it would add a lot of firepower to Japanese infantry units and considering the fighting in the Pacific I think it's short range wouldn't have been much of a limitation.

Mk 18 Mod 0 grenade launcher - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[McPherson]

They're planning on that anyway:

Inside the Army's NEW 6.8mm Next Gen Squad Weapon

Iraq War veteran Chris Cappy gives the Next Generation Squad Weapon rundown. These three companies are in competition to replace the M-16, M-249 SAW and

taskandpurpose.com

It won't be nearly as tough as you think, since the Creedmoor is basically a slightly shortened 7.62 NATO case; you can largely just swap out barrels in existing equipment.
Same thing could apply to some degree in per-WW2 conversions, they could shorten the chamber as they did with .30-06 to 7.62 NATO modifications:

https://peashooter85.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F87849397252

Call me VERY skeptical about this. (^^^).

The three techs offered are not combat friendly at all.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I'd argue the M79 was more versatile.

I'm sure we could debate that all day.

Though personally I could see the IJA adopting something like the MK18 grenade launcher. Light and relatively simple it would add a lot of firepower to Japanese infantry units and considering the fighting in the Pacific I think it's short range wouldn't have been much of a limitation.

Mk 18 Mod 0 grenade launcher - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sure, kind of surprised they didn't think of something like that. Maybe if the Soviets fielded their automatic grenade launcher:

Taubin's Grenade Launcher

In the mid 1930s, an automatic grenade launcher made by engineer Taubin was tested in the USSR. There were some good things about it, like a...

sovietguns.blogspot.com

Yakov Taubin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Гранатомет АГ-2 (Таубина) (Россия (СССР)) - характеристики, описание, фото и схемы

В конце августа 1931 года студент Одесского института технологии зерна и муки - Яков Григорьевич Таубин направил проект своего гранатомета, стрелявшего штатными 40,8-мм гранатами Дьяконова, в Артиллерийское управление РККА....

shooting-iron.ru

^Speaking of a weapon that should have seen service.

Then there were the rifle grenade launchers:

7 Rare Mosin-Nagant Rifle Modifications and Accessories -

It is not a secret that Mosin-Nagant rifles are one of the most popular military surplus rifles in the USA. They are relatively affordable, .30 cal reliable rifles just to mention a few reasons of their popularity. The information about the history and various modifications of these rifles is...

www.thefirearmblog.com

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Oh and the way to make the M14 viable:

 

[Blue cat]

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?

Over the years I have read a number accounts of "issues" with various magazines in the world war one and world war two eras. I wonder if perhaps issuing large numbers of fully interchangeable box magazines for a magazine fed Garand for example might have been an over reach for the available technology ?

 

[Father Maryland]

I'm sure we could debate that all day.


Sure, kind of surprised they didn't think of something like that. Maybe if the Soviets fielded their automatic grenade launcher:

Taubin's Grenade Launcher

In the mid 1930s, an automatic grenade launcher made by engineer Taubin was tested in the USSR. There were some good things about it, like a...

sovietguns.blogspot.com

Yakov Taubin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Гранатомет АГ-2 (Таубина) (Россия (СССР)) - характеристики, описание, фото и схемы

В конце августа 1931 года студент Одесского института технологии зерна и муки - Яков Григорьевич Таубин направил проект своего гранатомета, стрелявшего штатными 40,8-мм гранатами Дьяконова, в Артиллерийское управление РККА....

shooting-iron.ru

^Speaking of a weapon that should have seen service.

Then there were the rifle grenade launchers:

7 Rare Mosin-Nagant Rifle Modifications and Accessories -

It is not a secret that Mosin-Nagant rifles are one of the most popular military surplus rifles in the USA. They are relatively affordable, .30 cal reliable rifles just to mention a few reasons of their popularity. The information about the history and various modifications of these rifles is...

www.thefirearmblog.com

XM174 grenade launcher - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Something like this also seems doing. It was heavily based on the M1919 which was in common service in a bunch of countries at the time.

 

[Matt Wiser]

Or something like this: the M1 ADGS (Air Defense Gun System): twin 35-mm cannon and 12 ADATS missiles.

 

[Nick P]

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.

Details, details....

Corsairs were flown by 721 Squadron FAA until September 1947. Likely to have been in use with other squadrons immediately postwar.

721 Naval Air Squadron

www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk

Hellcats (named briefly as Gannets) left service in late 1946.

Grumman Avengers were in use by 848 Squadron FAA until June 1946. We could quibble as to whether the early name of Tarpon applied to later versions of the Avenger.

Grumman Avenger in British Service

The Grumman Avenger was the most important attack aircraft in use with the Fleet Air Arm during the last eighteen months of the Second World War, making its main contribution to the war effort in the Far East, although it was also used in significant numbers over Home Waters and off Norway

www.historyofwar.org

There are several other Lend-Lease aircraft that carried on until 1946 or 1947.
As for the Brewster Bermuda - these should have been pushed overboard before they even left the factory!

 

[marathag]

m sure we could debate that all day.

Not too long
M79 400 meter,vs 600 for Type 89.

Type 89 had 320 grams of filling, around 10xthe filling of the M79 grenades.

Many more types of ammo on the M79, and accurate in direct fire, and has an arming range, under 30 feet the fuze is safe. That's a big deal.

 

[marathag]

ere are several other Lend-Lease aircraft that carried on until 1946 or 1947.

US radar was placed on Gannets after removal from USN aircraft. The AN/APS-20, first made in 1945, was a really, really long lived piece of gear. The World's first real AEW unit.