Better US Army Weapons/Equipment in WW1

Honestly, that's the first time I've heard the shooting uphill point, but it sounds valid. The US certainly considered the Philippine experiences in weapons considerations. But, wouldn't the 7 x 57mm "Spanish" Mauser round achieve nearly the same performance, or am I overrating that cartridge? That cartridge certainly raised hell with US forces in Cuba. It's a bit smaller/lighter and from what I understand, shoots a bit flatter, with less felt recoil.
6mm Lee Navy30-40 Krag7x57 Mauser
Case typeSemi-rimmed, bottleneckrimmed, bottleneckRimless, bottleneck
Bullet diameter0.244 (0.236 dia. before rifling).308 in (7.8 mm)7.25 mm (0.285 in)
Neck diameter.278 in (7.1 mm).338 in (8.6 mm)8.25 mm (0.325 in)
Shoulder diameter.402 in (10.2 mm).423 in (10.7 mm)
10.92 mm (0.430 in
Base diameter.445 in (11.3 mm).457 in (11.6 mm)12.01 mm (0.473 in)
Rim diameter.448 in (11.4 mm).545 in (13.8 mm)12.10 mm (0.476 in)
Case length2.35 in (60 mm)
2.314 in (58.8 mm)
57.00 mm (2.244 in)
Overall length3.11 in (79 mm)3.089 in (78.5 mm)78.00 mm (3.071 in)
Rifling twist1:7½220 mm (1 in 8.66 in
Primer typeBoxer large rifleLarge RifleLarge rifle
Performance112gr bullet 2650fps 2569J220gr bullet 2000fps 2649J173gr bullet 2297fps 2746J
 
Goddard had four rocket designs in 1918, demonstrated a few days before the Armistice.
The largest was an indirect fire weapon with a range of over a kilometre (some sources claim ~1,800m), weighed about 50lbs and carried an 8lb payload.
The intermediate was a 3" tube launched, direct or indirect fire, weapon weighing about eight pounds while the lightest (~5lbs) was a 2" version. Both were fired from tubes mounted on a device made from two music stands. All three devices used the De Laval nozzle. He had earlier trialed, and probably demonstrated, a long 1" diameter rocket.
Goddard had developed the potential weapons in about a year but had a factious relationship with the Army Signal Corps.

Unfortunately there is little data on the accuracy or payload of the lighter rockets or the weight of the launch apparatus (not that much I'd estimate as it was a 5.5' sheet steel tube).
1. https://airandspace.si.edu/collecti...smokeless-powder-rh-goddard/nasm_A19850179000
2. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/nozzle-rocket-solid-fuel-rh-goddard/nasm_A19850180000

The rocket photo from the reddit citation IS the 8ft 5 inch long tube launched 3 inch projectile. The tube bipod is on two music stands and what looks to be a 3x4 timber lashed down with rope. As can be seen from the above citations the functional intent was to replace the 37 mm French trench gun with a more portable mortar like weapon. The weapon Goddard demonstrated was

doctor-goddard-robert-h-loading-a-1918-version-of-the-bazooka-of-world-war-ii-at-mt-wilson-obs-california-PYJ8HB.jpg

Robert Goddard Rocket Stock Photos & Robert Goddard Rocket ...

the 3 inch. This was reported to have an effective range of 850 yards during the test. The weapon seen does not have the screw threading of the 1 inch projectile in the hands of the air and space museum.
 
Last edited:
After All, General Sedgewick was dead sure that snipers couldn't hit an Elephant at the distance his position was behind the line
Stray bullets do travel. Aimed fire did not kill Sedgewick. It was harassment fire. Those Confederate rat bastards involved (about a platoon of indifferent snipers) had been peppering the Union position with shots to keep Union troops from using the road to bring up food and ammunition. It is like saying Joe Hooker was going to be hit by an individually aimed cannon ball when Porter Alexander's artillery was pummeling the whole farm around Hooker's HQ with cannon balls and one just happened by chance to hit the pillar that Fighting Joe was standing next, too. Sheesh. CONTEXT.
 
Last edited:
The whole "Made from two music stands" bit is pretty funny.

"Well I'm developing a new weapon system. Off to the Guitar shop then."
Meh, you improvise where you can, and 'borrow' stuff to save money. The main component of my third-year university physics project was a rather elaborate, three-way, Liebig condenser I 'borrowed' from the chemistry department museum and turned into a gas laser.
 
1. https://airandspace.si.edu/collecti...smokeless-powder-rh-goddard/nasm_A19850179000
2. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/nozzle-rocket-solid-fuel-rh-goddard/nasm_A19850180000

The rocket photo from the reddit citation IS the 8ft 5 inch long tube launched 3 inch projectile. The tube bipod is on two music stands and what looks to be a 3x4 timber lashed down with rope. As can be seen from the above citations the functional intent was to replace the 37 mm French trench gun with a more portable mortar like weapon. The weapon Goddard demonstrated was

doctor-goddard-robert-h-loading-a-1918-version-of-the-bazooka-of-world-war-ii-at-mt-wilson-obs-california-PYJ8HB.jpg

Robert Goddard Rocket Stock Photos & Robert Goddard Rocket ...

the 3 inch. This was reported to have an effective range of 850 yards during the test. The weapon seen does not have the screw threading of the 1 inch projectile in the hands of the air and space museum.
That's the bugger, though that tube isn't 8'5" but 5'5'. Annoyingly while there are references to direct fire there is no data in any source I've ever found regarding direct fire range or accuracy. Given the burn characteristics of grained black powder there would be issues with consistent straight-line flight
 
Honestly, that's the first time I've heard the shooting uphill point, but it sounds valid. The US certainly considered the Philippine experiences in weapons considerations. But, wouldn't the 7 x 57mm "Spanish" Mauser round achieve nearly the same performance, or am I overrating that cartridge? That cartridge certainly raised hell with US forces in Cuba. It's a bit smaller/lighter and from what I understand, shoots a bit flatter, with less felt recoil.
The 1895 Mauser in 7x57mm proved itself in the Boer War, starting Britain on the road to it's own Mauser style bolt-action rifle and 7mm 'hot' round to replace the Lee system and the .303 round.
 
As I understand it, the primary reason is that the ‘modern system’ is terribly expensive to implement and very challenging to use. You have to not only train every NCO to command the type of small-unit tactics that you’d previously only train company commanders in, train the company commanders to manage semi-autonomous minor units rather than blocks of obedient proles, but also train everyone to deal with a battlefield where every unit is by intention virtually invisible and moving unpredictably, etc. etc. It’s very difficult and even today lots of armies haven’t managed it.
Of course, when obliteration by modern firepower becomes an issue its extremely attractive but then runs into practical problems, namely that multi-million man armies need vast numbers of NCOs and officers to receive this complex small-unit training at the exact same time when millions of recruits urgently need to be trained how to hold a rifle and tens of thousands of officer trainees are struggling to hurriedly learn map reading and whistle blowing.
OTL that put everyone into a situation of having huge rapidly expanded armies that were tactically clumsy for a while, in both world wars.
Yes it takes 3 years to train a continental army from a small peace time army (UK, USA) - let alone introduce such practices as more independent sub units.

So obviously if you already have one (France, Germany, Russia) then this process should take less time but it still take time for a peacetime 'Continental army' to absorb the lessons of the latest war and often has an issue with the established inertia of its existing Officer and NCO corps - so again it still takes time to create such changes.
 
The Pedersen device was a fascinating attempt to 'square the circle'. Perhaps with a more powerful cartridge and dedicated carbines? Take a bunch of rifles, shorten them and permanently convert them to fire a short .30 round?
while that might be a novel way to use up some krags, i'm thinking that Pedersen can get a clean sheet design ready in time.
just tell him you like the idea of the carbine but can't spare the rifles att


The Chauchat but leave it in 8mm Lebel.
i'd prefer the Belgian model tbh.
 
while that might be a novel way to use up some krags, i'm thinking that Pedersen can get a clean sheet design ready in time.
just tell him you like the idea of the carbine but can't spare the rifles att
That's an idea, assuming the US has the rifles to spare. If the .30-06 Enfield was in production then it could also be used as the basis for a 'Pedersen carbine' with a shorter barrel and permanent semi-auto/selective mechanism. However the cartridge really needs to be improved.
 
That's an idea, assuming the US has the rifles to spare. If the .30-06 Enfield was in production then it could also be used as the basis for a 'Pedersen carbine' with a shorter barrel and permanent semi-auto/selective mechanism. However the cartridge really needs to be improved.
Are you referring to a Mark II Pedersen device or distinct semi-auto rifle?
 
Are you referring to a Mark II Pedersen device or distinct semi-auto rifle?
i think that i want a clean sheet purpose built carbine while @Catsmate wants to permanently convert surplus rifles into carbines

Edit: btw i should mention that my planning is based around the idea of that the war goes on into 1919-1920*, so ifaik there are no "surplus" Springfield or Enfield rifles, that's why i brought up the krag's

*yes i'm fully aware that the otl armistice will ruin my plans. i'd rather plan for the worst and not need it then fall short here
However the cartridge really needs to be improved.
maybe, however there comes a point where improving the cartridge becomes developing a new cartridge.
how far do you want to go?
 
Last edited:
And please fix the magazine.
Modern trials with the Chauchat point to the issue with the magazine not being the design (given that it had to use the 8mm Lebel round) but with the quality and gauge of the metal used in them. Over a quarter of a million of the guns were made so the numbers of magazines needed was in the many millions so that might have been inevitable to get them in those numbers. Use of the magazine has explained good reasons for all the aspects of it’s design. The Belgian ones, for their 7,65x53 Mauser rounds, were a better design, but then for a more suitable cartridge than a 8mm necked down rimmed 1874 11x59mm black powder single shot rifle. The fix would be the French modernising their standard small arms round well before the outbreak of war.
 
Just close off the sides. That’s easy enough.
Using USG issued 30.06 in an Americanized Chauchat, sealing the windows is not enough. The ammo feed jammed at the upper lip feed of the receiver. French or Belgian ammo? No problem. But the curved mags for the Americanized Chauchat were a disaster closed or open.

 
Last edited:
Using USG issued 30.06 in an Americanized Chauchat, sealing the windows is not enough. The ammo feed jammed at the upper lip feed of the receiver. French or Belgian ammo? No problem. But the curved mags for the Americanized Chauchat were a disaster closed or open.
Because the conversion to 30.06 was a disaster.
 
Modern trials with the Chauchat point to the issue with the magazine not being the design (given that it had to use the 8mm Lebel round) but with the quality and gauge of the metal used in them. Over a quarter of a million of the guns were made so the numbers of magazines needed was in the many millions so that might have been inevitable to get them in those numbers. Use of the magazine has explained good reasons for all the aspects of it’s design. The Belgian ones, for their 7,65x53 Mauser rounds, were a better design, but then for a more suitable cartridge than a 8mm necked down rimmed 1874 11x59mm black powder single shot rifle. The fix would be the French modernising their standard small arms round well before the outbreak of war.
If you're diverging before the war the the French could have licensed the Lewis.

i think that i want a clean sheet purpose built carbine while @Catsmate wants to permanently convert surplus rifles into carbines

maybe, however there comes a point where improving the cartridge becomes developing a new cartridge.
how far do you want to go?
I'd prefer new weapons. But realistically a conversion of surplus weapons is easier to sell.

As for cartridges, was anyone in the US making the .30 Mauser pistol round? A hotter load perhaps would make a better round and still work with the .30-06/.30-03 barrel.

Are you referring to a Mark II Pedersen device or distinct semi-auto rifle?
The Pedersen was tested (IIRR) with the Enfield so if they were 'surplus' they might be available, though given the US use of the Enfield and the shortage of Springfield rifles they'd probably be needed as first line weapons.
 
As for cartridges, was anyone in the US making the .30 Mauser pistol round? A hotter load perhaps would make a better round and still work with the .30-06/.30-03 barrel
No.
But could have redone the 32 Winchester Self Loading, that was used as the basis for the M1 Carbine of WWII in .30
It was a 165 gr bullet at 1392 fps, 960J, so much more powerful than 30 Mauser, at 550J, that itself was more powerful than the 30 Pederson at 300J
 
I'd prefer new weapons. But realistically a conversion of surplus weapons is easier to sell.
fair enough
browning and pederson are probably the only designers with the kind of clout needed to get a new production the thumbs up. ok that came out wrong. anyways, i understand going for the easy win as long as it works
As for cartridges, was anyone in the US making the .30 Mauser pistol round?
actually, yes,
https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/early-remington-30-mauser-box/27620
c932713710bd3ed6aa05cf2dc9984c8147e0bd40.jpg

loaded in 1912

https://www.legacy-collectibles.com/30-mauser-ammo-062320.html
20200622_180203.jpg


The Pedersen was tested (IIRR) with the Enfield so if they were 'surplus' they might be available, though given the US use of the Enfield and the shortage of Springfield rifles they'd probably be needed as first line weapons.
apparently there was a prototype for the Mosin–Nagant, likely the idea was to convert the leftover rifles New England Westinghouse and Remington weren't able to ship
 
Last edited:
Top