Design an automatic rifle for WW2 in 1938

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
At the squad level several pushed the LMG back to the platoon level and kept automatic rifles at the squad level.
See the Germans with the STG44, what the British wanted with the EM-2 and have done recently by basically eliminating any SAW at the squad level (even dropping the LSW) and adding in markman rifles, the USMC did with adopting the M27 IAR, etc.
Mobility and ammo load matter; the heavier the SAW the less ammo they could carry and the harder it is for the SAW gunner to keep up. Many modern militaries are realizing the problem of having heavy belt fed SAWs at the squad level when on maneuver; the only time that they want a belt fed SAW with QC barrel is on the defensive in fixed positions.
Note my comment at the bottom (ie none box mag equipped army's) and that's not the "automatic rifle" talked about above as cold war battle rifles are apparently out and therefore no STG44, EM-2 or anything in 556...?
 
I just dont see much gap between,
CW BRs M15/G3 on bipod - your AR - Light weight mag fed LMGs ie Bren guns?
In detail - IMO,
- a single solider can employ/be easy to carry, fire effectively and reload while the operator is keeping up with soldiers armed with rifles - This suggest no belt feed and a limited max weight?
- deliver effective automatic fire at typical battlefield distances - This effectively means from the bipod if you are using 30-06 in full auto?
- reasonable degree of sustained fire - This realistically means an QC barrel or you are just as limited as a BR?
I just dont see the advatage to an AR over a light LMG even if it slightly heavier for one guy this more than make up by the advatage in firepower he will deliver to suport the rest of his team who can help by carrying some of his load?

I also question the concept as almost all army's have gone with a LMG/GPMG when they had the choice?
(especially if you remove army's armed with box mag fed (battle or assault) weapons for the rest of the section, in 38 you have to assume that the rest might have bolt guns and the AR might be the only automatic in the squad if the M1 doesn't get produced sufficiently fast)

IMHO for the concept to work well one needs to use a cartridge significantly less powerful than 30 06. In today world the USMC M27, the Danish LSV etc are probably reasonably good examples of this type of automatic rifle (although the M27 seems quite light in weight.)

Post ww2 a number of armies seem to have used various types of box fed and belt fed automatic weapons at squad level at various times. I can see pros and cons to both approaches and agree in principle with many of your points.
 

Deleted member 1487

Note my comment at the bottom (ie none box mag equipped army's) and that's not the "automatic rifle" talked about above as cold war battle rifles are apparently out and therefore no STG44, EM-2 or anything in 556...?
Not sure why you think that makes a difference, if you look at the reasoning behind why armies in 1938 were going with either belt or box fed true LMGs it was because that was cheaper than equipping everyone with semi-auto rifles, not because it was their ideal choice. When they had other options or combat experience they wanted to move the LMG back to the platoon level and wanted a light automatic weapon that could keep up with the rest of the squad and allow for more ammo to be carried. That's why even when presented with an intermediate cartridge rifle and belt fed LMG of Czech design in 1941-42 the Germans opted to try out the rifle and not touch the belt fed weapon. They quickly killed their own belt fed intermediate cartridge SAW design too when developing the STG 44.

IMHO for the concept to work well one needs to use a cartridge significantly less powerful than 30 06.
That is why one of the advantages cited for the .276 Pedersen was the substantially lower recoil and heat buildup vs. the .30-06. Had that cartridge been adopted I could easily see it being used in an automatic rifle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO, the big question is, will the Army buy it?

If you handwave in "yes", I'd start with something like an AUG in a .276x1.75" (rimless, possibly bottlenecked-down from .30-'06), 20rd mag, all-plastic furniture (Bakelite?), with as much stamping as possible.

I have a strong suspicion that would be a non-starter for the "WTF?!" factor. That being so, I'd go with a close copy of the AR-18, again in .276, again all-plastic furniture.

Much as I like the idea of full auto or a burst feature, IMO they're complexities an infantry rifle doesn't need in 1940.
 
It was never part of the strategy to lose the city regardless of any post hoc rationalizations by the Soviets.


Not sure that much of a discussion. What's your criteria for 'greater than'? Given that the Soviets replaced the PPSH41 with the PPS as much as possible and dumped that drum magazine due to all the jamming issues that doesn't really support your position. They did introduce an improve drum in 1944, but even then they only loaded them to 65 rounds to avoid overtaxing the springs. Certainly the German magazines needed improvements like those introduced in the Swedish K magazines, but the MP40 was itself one of the great SMGs:
NO.
MP 40 was heavy, didn't have a dedicated front grip, and the magazine was total shit.
MP 40 magazine was single feed unlike the Tommy's double feed.
Thus it had feed issues.
Untrained soldiers using the magazine as a front grip made it worse.
The Tommy had a dedicated front grip.
Tommy gun.jpg


I would rather have a pre-war MP 34.
Same mag cap (32 rnds) and same caliber (9x19mm Parabellum)
And the feeding system was offset deliberately to prevent jamming.
My great-grandfather used one all thru out 8 years of war against the Japanese.
Never did it let him down or I wouldn't be here ranting.
 

Deleted member 1487

NO.
MP 40 was heavy, didn't have a dedicated front grip, and the magazine was total shit.
MP 40 magazine was single feed unlike the Tommy's double feed.
Thus it had feed issues.
Untrained soldiers using the magazine as a front grip made it worse.
The Tommy had a dedicated front grip.
View attachment 535757

I would rather have a pre-war MP 34.
Same mag cap (32 rnds) and same caliber (9x19mm Parabellum)
And the feeding system was offset deliberately to prevent jamming.
My great-grandfather used one all thru out 8 years of war against the Japanese.
Never did it let him down or I wouldn't be here ranting.
You do realize why the Thompson was dumped and the MP 34 was replaced by the MP 38 and 40, right? The MP40 didn't need a dedicated front grip (your PPSH 41 lacked one too), just a PPS43 style mag well.

How did you grandfather get an MP34 in Asia?
 

Deleted member 1487

IMO, the big question is, will the Army buy it?

If you handwave in "yes", I'd start with something like an AUG in a .276x1.75" (rimless, possibly bottlenecked-down from .30-'06), 20rd mag, all-plastic furniture (Bakelite?), with as much stamping as possible.

I have a strong suspicion that would be a non-starter for the "WTF?!" factor. That being so, I'd go with a close copy of the AR-18, again in .276, again all-plastic furniture.

Much as I like the idea of full auto or a burst feature, IMO they're complexities an infantry rifle doesn't need in 1940.
By the rules I set up technically it was possible...though how many bullpups existed at the time? I don't think it would be technically feasible to work out one in 1938 in a rifle caliber. Bakelite furniture would fall apart, but early fiberglass existed, it was just too expensive to use. Got to go with wood if not metal.
The AR-18 was feasible, as the short stroke gas piston and rotating bolt did already exist, but if you don't go automatic then it isn't an automatic rifle and outside the scope of this what if challenge.
 
You do realize why the Thompson was dumped and the MP 34 was replaced by the MP 38 and 40, right? The MP40 didn't need a dedicated front grip (your PPSH 41 lacked one too), just a PPS43 style mag well.

How did you grandfather get an MP34 in Asia?
KMT bought a bunch in the 1930s.
My great-grandfather was lucky enough to be in a German trained division.
Only they got the good guns.

MP34 was replaced because it was too expensive, not because it was a bad gun.
MP40 was cheaper and easier to make, but worse. Not to mention heavier.
Thompson was dumped for a less accurate but cheaper M3.

In total war, cost is king.
The rest is a meme.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

KMT bought a bunch in the 1930s.
My great-grandfather was lucky enough to be in a German trained division.
Only they got the good guns.
Oh wow. I didn't realize you were Chinese. Much respect to your grandfather and his service. 8 years is a rough tour in a really rough theater of combat.
 
Oh wow. I didn't realize you were Chinese. Much respect to your grandfather and his service. 8 years is a rough tour in a really rough theater of combat.
Thank you.
It's great-grandfather, but that's just a small point.
I don't disagree in principle that the MP 40 was good, it just had problems that could have been resolved in the design process.
Like the feeding issue.
MP 34 solved it and it was made before the MP 40.
 

Deleted member 1487

Thank you.
It's great-grandfather, but that's just a small point.
Apologies, reading too quick.

I don't disagree in principle that the MP 40 was good, it just had problems that could have been resolved in the design process.
Like the feeding issue.
MP 34 solved it and it was made before the MP 40.
The only significant issue the MP40 had was the magazine design (not a problem with the gun itself), folding stock (again not a problem with the gun itself), and arguably complexity/cost. That complexity made it extremely accurate for it's class, but more expensive than the PPS-43 and Sten. It wasn't any worse than the PPSH-41 to make and might have actually been cheaper.
The MP34 was too expensive to make, because it was all machined and more than a pound heavier. The side mounted magazine made it unbalanced even if it helped with. AFAIK it used the same magazines as the MP40, it just had less feeding issues due to being side mounted and angled to make feeding easier. That of course was more expensive and difficult to make, which is why the MP38 and 40 got rid of the feature. For some reason the Germans did not like the side feed magazine in their SMGs, so they got rid of it for a reason when they made the 38 and 40 as well as their Sten knock off (mp3008).

Now an Owen gun layout would have probably fixed the majority of feeding issues and didn't apparently make the sights less accurate.

MP34 was replaced because it was too expensive, not because it was a bad gun.
I know and said that.

MP40 was cheaper and easier to make, but worse. Not to mention heavier.
Not sure what criteria made it worse.
It was not heavier, it was over a pound lighter and much easier to make:
Mass3.97 kg (8.75 lb)[2][3]


Weight empty, kg4.25


Thompson was dumped for a less accurate but cheaper M3.
And VASTLY less expensive. The Thompson at the start of the war cost over $100 in 1940 value money. It was more expensive than a Garand IIRC.

In total war, cost is king.
The rest is a meme.
I do think I already said that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No quick change barrel, no belt feed.
I agree with the QCB requirement, but I think we should say top-feed rather than belt-feed because Bren guns are definitely LMGs and not automatic rifles. Top-feed magazines and belt feed are basically identical as far as the orientation of the operating system is concerned, and they are both intended, at least in part, to allow operation by a loader.
 

Deleted member 1487

I agree with the QCB requirement, but I think we should say top-feed rather than belt-feed because Bren guns are definitely LMGs and not automatic rifles. Top-feed magazines and belt feed are basically identical as far as the orientation of the operating system is concerned, and they are both intended, at least in part, to allow operation by a loader.
He said for the purpose of this thread. So you could have a top feed, but no QC barrel. But no QC barrel fullstop.
Bottom feed magazines are just the same as top feed, it's just a question of where it enters the gun; belt feeding is quite a bit different from top feed magazines.
 
No quick change barrel, no belt feed.
Re the No QCB issue..

I suppose if these hypothetical WW2 era automatic rifles were issued two per squad, if needed they could be grouped and the two operators could more or less use them in the same way that an LMG group of two soldiers would have employed an LMG.. (ie. one solider fires and the other passes magazines, and one auto rifle cools down while the other is being fired.) I realize two soldiers with two automatic rifles is not quite the same as say two soldiers manning a Bren gun for example, but on balance two auto rifles per squad might be preferable to one LMG, particularly if belt fed automatic weapons were available at platoon and company level.
 
He said for the purpose of this thread. So you could have a top feed, but no QC barrel. But no QC barrel fullstop.
Bottom feed magazines are just the same as top feed, it's just a question of where it enters the gun; belt feeding is quite a bit different from top feed magazines.

That makes sense. Insofar as top fed SMG`s were issued during ww2, it would not seem un reasonable to issue a top fed auto rifle.
 
Top