Deleted member 1487
The ballistics were atrocious, but for it's time it was way ahead. It was basically a worse .300 Blackout.
Now put a .22-.257 bullet on it and you're cooking with gas.
Army equipment that should have seen service
- Thread starter Bougnas
- Start date
Now put a .22-.257 bullet on it and you're cooking with gas.
SwampTiger
Banned
I agree. The French should have gone back to the 7x59 Meunier bullet, or one of the smaller bullets proposed during development.
I still like the of a M1 Garand chambered in the original .270 with the enbloc clips replaced by detachable 20 round magazines. Add on the option of a detachable underslung grenade launcher and some sort of proto rail system for mounting optics.
The British Army had teams of statisticians and operational research types looking over the immediate aftermath of various engagements during WW2 including the Western Desert, Far East, Italy and Northern Europe and each survey was done within hours or minutes of the battle ending. So when the UK said they needed a weapon firing an intermediate cartridge with an effective range of approx 500 yards and capable of full automatic fire for assault and suppression it was based on a much sounder basis than the US Army's lets make crap up to match a pre-existing conclusion based on zero evidence and personal prejudice.
Deleted member 1487
The only problem there is why did they need a 140 grain 7mm bullet for that? A US study in 1930 showed that a .20 cal high velocity round was the best choice for within 500 yards:
They screwed up by trying to make their new cartridge a universal cartridge and compromised their basic premise and in fact ensured the death of their project by US demands. They should have pushed for a two caliber standard, one for their 400 yard max range (what they actually wanted, not what they scaled up to to appease US demands), and one for their MMG/HMG/long range rifles. Of course they could have just used the .25-3000 as the conceptual basis for a cartridge, as they could neck down the 7.62 case to 6.35mm and standardize on one case to cut cost, but still have all the benefits of a light, fast bullet that would dominate out to 500 yards. While certainly not as good as the 5.56 in that role, it still would be much better than the .270 or .280. Conversely they could have also have done what the US ended up doing with their 7.62 NATO cartridge in Vietnam: make a very light bullet for it and use the same case:
US Army adopts the low recoil 7.62 NATO round with M14
What if in order to deal with the problem of automatic fire controllability the M14 was adopted with the US low recoil 7.62 cartridge? Apparently it was fully comparable in effectiveness to a regular 7.62 NATO cartridge out to 500m, had 37% less recoil, and made the weapon controllable in full...
www.alternatehistory.com
The US demands made more sense in the context of a universal cartridge for all roles, but that universal cartridge concept was bunk and proven so in combat relatively quickly.
Last edited by a moderator:
BlackDragon98
Banned
Lots more Hs 123s.
Those things look fragile but boy were they tough, in the air and on the ground.
Add Mk 103s under the wings and you get an excellent CAS plane.
Use it at night and you get a night harassment plane.
It would also work very well against partisans.
And did I mention it's ease of maintenance, low cost, and simplicity?
Or the fact that it could outmaneuver Soviet fighters after the bomb load was released?
Or the machine gun noises that could be made by manipulating the engine RPM?
Luftwaffe should have had thousands of these planes.
Might make for a more successful OP Barbarossa
Those things look fragile but boy were they tough, in the air and on the ground.
Add Mk 103s under the wings and you get an excellent CAS plane.
Use it at night and you get a night harassment plane.
It would also work very well against partisans.
And did I mention it's ease of maintenance, low cost, and simplicity?
Or the fact that it could outmaneuver Soviet fighters after the bomb load was released?
Or the machine gun noises that could be made by manipulating the engine RPM?
Luftwaffe should have had thousands of these planes.
Might make for a more successful OP Barbarossa
A weird one from Canada: tapered-barrel mortar. Supposed to give better range with less well-machined projectiles.
More conventional: T48 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage- with the British, preferably in time for North Africa, I mean. It was used in small numbers by the Soviets fairly successfully, so there's no reason it shouldn't perform well earlier and the British really needed a self-propelled 6-pounder.
More conventional: T48 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage- with the British, preferably in time for North Africa, I mean. It was used in small numbers by the Soviets fairly successfully, so there's no reason it shouldn't perform well earlier and the British really needed a self-propelled 6-pounder.
They needed a 7mm bullet so they could have specialist rounds including tracer, AP etc The TADEN was really a SAW and was not intended to fully supplant the Vickers MMG. No doubt there would have been a Vickers replacement which would likely look much like the MAG or a MG42.
Deleted member 1487
Not really sure why they couldn't with sub-7mm bullets. After all the Swedes were fine with 6.5mm and having a heavy 8mm for longer range work.
The Taden was according to wikipedia a multi-role weapon, with a light and medium version, the difference being whether it had a butt stock and pistol grip or fired from a tripod with spade handles, but both styles were belt fed:
The EM-2 was designed to collapse all the roles in the squad into 1 weapon (SMG, rifle, Bren).
McPherson
Banned
I came across a Canadian self loading rifle program.
Prototype Canadian SLR in 8mm, 1944. Note that the magazine appears to be a ZB-26 type. Source: MilArt photo archives
Source: Forgotten Weapons.
I am most curious why this program was originally for * mm Mauser and why the program, initiated by the British wound up in Canada?
I will add this little bit.
The T23E1 result.
Missed opportunity for a viable squad automatic weapon.
Prototype Canadian SLR in 8mm, 1944. Note that the magazine appears to be a ZB-26 type. Source: MilArt photo archives
Source: Forgotten Weapons.
I am most curious why this program was originally for * mm Mauser and why the program, initiated by the British wound up in Canada?
I will add this little bit.
The T23E1 result.
Missed opportunity for a viable squad automatic weapon.
Last edited:
Oi! This is the army thread! Chair force has its own thread!
Calibre-wise, iirc the British had intended to switch to 7.92 Mauser for a while and it wasn't until after the war that they finally decided to have another bullet replace .303
As for why it went to Canada... idk, quality gunsmiths who are His Majesty's subjects are quality gunsmiths who are His Majesty's subjects. Probably don't need much reason past that.
Ian_W
Banned
This is definitely a missed opportunity.
Birch gun - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
View attachment 531171
What is particularly annoying about the Birch Gun is the thing *is* twentieth century Royal Horse Artillery, and it breaks the twentieth century square - the machinegun nest.
For the British and CW, 1930s and on:
- 'JagdChurchill'
- a semi-auto in 6,35-6,5mm (.250-3000, or 6,5mm Swedish or Italian, with spitzer bullet obviously); Bren in the same calibre; army Browning in the same calibre
- recoilless rifle instead of PIAT (take a page from the Davis gun)
- tank turrets for 3 crew members mandatory; ditch the 'fire on the move' idea so bigger guns are installed earlier than historically
- 'JagdChurchill'
- a semi-auto in 6,35-6,5mm (.250-3000, or 6,5mm Swedish or Italian, with spitzer bullet obviously); Bren in the same calibre; army Browning in the same calibre
- recoilless rifle instead of PIAT (take a page from the Davis gun)
- tank turrets for 3 crew members mandatory; ditch the 'fire on the move' idea so bigger guns are installed earlier than historically
Oh for the world where the Experimental Armoured Force was expanded into a full armoured division complete with all SPGs and attached infantry carried by Bufford Kagresse Armoured Half Tracks that had their reliability issues sorted out.
Ian_W
Banned
I'm not sure you can sort out the reliability issues with halftracks - it kind of comes with the territory on something that is neither fish nor fowl.
I'd be interested in just ripping the gun of the 30s light tanks and using them as an artillery tractor and ammo carrier - 1918 experience showed that getting ammo up to the guns was the important bit.
Honestly I think, in a WW2 context, halftracks and similar are excessively expensive overkill - something like a Bren Carrier was the right solution, in that it carries the ammo and support weapons, while the infantry go by lorry and then walk.
But the hard bit isn't weapons, it's doctrine - and the old RHA doctrine with Birch Guns married to 'dragoons ride to battle and fight on foot' works well enough.
Basically, my issue isnt that the RA had conniptions when people fired HE out of tank guns, it's that the RA and RAH werent running the entire tank force ...
When adopted the Lee Metford rifle was intended to be used with multiple detachable box magazines. For various reasons this wasn't done and the army went into the Boer War having to load the rifle one round at a time. Via a couple of makeshifts the Lee rifle was adapted to use stripper clips towards the end of the war. By the time the No. 4 Mk1 was adopted the issues with making reliable magazines were long sorted out and it would have been perfectly feasible for the No. 4 to be issued with 5 or 6, 20 round magazines greatly increasing the firepower of the individual rifleman.
One thing of note about the Rifle No9 (EM2) it was to be issued in two barrel lengths,
At top, short barreled version, for paratroops and personnel who need a carbine size weapon.
Middle, Standard issue Rifle No9
Bottom, FAL in same Caliber for comparison,
Note the barrel on the fall is the same length as the on the short EM2 . The extra " of barrel on the Rifle No9 will give it some more velocity and better long range performance than the FAL.
IMVHO,this weapon in .270 was a real missed opportunity. Marry it to the CETME Low drag/low recoil cartridge's in 1952 would have been a massive game changer.
Going back further this little beauty pre war would have been very useful in a carbine/ smg for WW2
At top, short barreled version, for paratroops and personnel who need a carbine size weapon.
Middle, Standard issue Rifle No9
Bottom, FAL in same Caliber for comparison,
Note the barrel on the fall is the same length as the on the short EM2 . The extra " of barrel on the Rifle No9 will give it some more velocity and better long range performance than the FAL.
IMVHO,this weapon in .270 was a real missed opportunity. Marry it to the CETME Low drag/low recoil cartridge's in 1952 would have been a massive game changer.
Going back further this little beauty pre war would have been very useful in a carbine/ smg for WW2
McPherson
Banned
The Americans and Germans did well enough, though I think went to Teutonic excess with their Hanomags.
Try backing a tank towed gun into a pre-dug gun pit. ATV trucks are far superior at the hitch when it comes to pivots
Same argument about Bren carriers. If a wheeled jeep/land rover can cross the same ground with the same lift and haulage capacity; then the Bren is not suited for the purpose as it is a lousy tow vehicle as most full tracked vehicles are. The Bren carrier lorries infantry with the tanks. No overhead and minimal splinter protection. Might have to think about kangaroos early and often.
Not if US experience is any guide. The Germans were a bit better. Until Montgomery sorted the Germans out, the British were being swatted rather hard, too.
My issue with Wallies between the wars was that no-one paid enough attention to all arms, which means more than just the army fellows. You need air recon and SIGNALS and Mister Aerie CAS and Mister Deep BIM working with the Rupert the tanker, and lorried Joe Infantry and Arty, too.