German army adopts 7mm cartridge in 1930s, post-war impact?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

The Wehrmacht (both the army and Luftwaffe) worked on developing a slew of 7mm cartridges in the 1930s, but ultimately did not adopt any of them for a variety of reasons. What if the German army did, unlike OTL being willing to invest in new barrel making equipment for it (the 7mm Polte cartridge used the existing cartridge cases of the 7.92mm Mauser just shortened to 45mm)?
http://www.cartridgecollector.net/7-x-45-polte

I couldn't find performance figures, but the for sake of argument let's say it approximates that of the .276 Pedersen. It would be intended for use in self loading rifles, LMGs, infantry rifles, etc. MMGs and HMGs would still use the 7.92mm Mauser as would longer range sniper rifles. It would also get used in TTL's FG-42 and STG (if it even happens).

So how does this impact post-war thinking about small arms? It would probably confirm British thoughts about the 7mm caliber and probably push them even more quickly to adopt their .280 cartridge, but how about the French, Americas, and Soviets? Might the British .280 get some traction then? How about the impact of small arms design given that something like the FG-42 would be quite a bit lighter, more accurate, not in need of an insane muzzle brake and recoil buffer, less likely to overheat as quickly, etc? Even the MG42/ATL LMG would be a different animal if like the Pedersen it had only 40-50% of the heat load of the full sized battle rifle cartridge in service, same with recoil. Even the G43 might be a better weapon that it was IOTL and prevent the STG.

All that would have an influence on the Allies' combat experience, especially if they had to deal with MG42s that required 50% fewer barrel swaps in combat. Would that be enough though to significantly change NATO and Soviet thinking around small arms design and caliber?
 
I think you would still see 7.92 full power for what the Germans called the MMG,HMG setups and for vehicles, but the LMG being the 34 and then 42 in 7mm with the drum feed and bipod only,probably followed by a lighter, smaller midwar replacement based on the 42 for a SAW, or FG42 for that role.
 

Deleted member 1487

I think you would still see 7.92 full power for what the Germans called the MMG,HMG setups and for vehicles,
For sure, I stipulated that above.

but the LMG being the 34 and then 42 in 7mm with the drum feed and bipod only,probably followed by a lighter, smaller midwar replacement based on the 42 for a SAW, or FG42 for that role.
Since the cartridge would be adopted in the mid-1930s I'd imagine the MG42 would be designed around the intermediate cartridge and the MG34 kept, perhaps simplified, in the MMG/HMG role, as IOTL they continued to produce it throughout the war (over 100k more were made than the MG42) and even turned the ZB26 factory into an MG34 factory once the MG42 was adopted. The FG42 even if simpler and less heavy than IOTL was still probably too complex for mass issue, but could potentially meet the goal of full replacement of all other weapons within some FJ units.

Any thoughts about the influence on post-war designs?
 
As both Britain and Belgium took a long hard look at the 8mm Kurtz and the round sits quite nicely in the range they were looking for I could see them adopting it without any modification for their post war rifles. The trouble is they still run up against US refusal to even consider an intermediate power round or one in less than .30 for the standard NATO round.
 

Deleted member 1487

As both Britain and Belgium took a long hard look at the 8mm Kurtz and the round sits quite nicely in the range they were looking for I could see them adopting it without any modification for their post war rifles. The trouble is they still run up against US refusal to even consider an intermediate power round or one in less than .30 for the standard NATO round.
That's what I'm wondering though; if the US experiences the mass issue of such an intermediate caliber/cartridge and it is combat proven on a wide scale are they really going to having their OTL objections? As it was IOTL it might have been the combat experience of successful use of full power battle rifle cartridges by their main enemy that informed US army thinking around the future of small arms, while the experience against the StG/7.92 Kurz was so limited that they didn't really even consider it unlike the British, who apparently were much more focused on their operations research than the US was at the time (not to say the US wasn't at all, but the general view was that the existing arms were good enough). It took the Korean war setbacks for the US army to seriously reevaluate it's small arms.

So if the Germans are able to successfully use their lighter cartridges effectively, both from the production savings angle and the improvements to smalls arms, from before the point that the US is in the war that changes the US combat experience and extrapolated views on what to do later in the war and post-war.
 
I think it more likely that the US just ramps up production of the M1/2 Carbine in that case rather than look at something "Not invented here". At least until it bites them in the arse.
 

Deleted member 1487

I think it more likely that the US just ramps up production of the M1/2 Carbine in that case rather than look at something "Not invented here". At least until it bites them in the arse.
I mean the US did rip off the Mauser action to make the Springfield rifle (and IIRC the .30-06 has Mauser influences as well) and had to pay Mauser royalties for it. Later they adopted the FN MAG as the US GPMG and FN Minimi as the SAW. The US also adopted the Bofors 40mm too. So NMH isn't as much a constraints as commonly thought. The .276 Pedersen and small arms developments associated with that were all US designs, so there isn't necessarily a problem there, especially if they simply neck down the existing .30-06 case to 7mm and shorten the case. I wonder if that would make the M14 viable for the roles the US army envisioned when first developing it.
 
I wonder if that would make the M14 viable for the roles the US army envisioned when first developing it.
Still would be too heavy, and suffer all the Q/C issues.
It would be more successful than OTL, but that's a really low bar
 
Any thoughts about the influence on post-war designs?
The M60 of this TL is still likely to be a Frankenstein of good German MG ideas, done poorly.

I would see 30-06 retained for the MMG role, with the new 7mm for the LMG/SAW area.

I feel the AR10 would do better in the new Battle Rifle competition, maybe enough to overturn that nasty M14 from Springfield from winning, even with the Ordnance thumb on the scale fore it.

AR10 as main battle rifle would slow the AR15, possible to a dead stop, or just remains an USAF guard gun.
 

Deleted member 1487

Still would be too heavy, and suffer all the Q/C issues.
What qualifies as 'too heavy'? It could well be lighter than the OTL Garand. QC issues were worked out and 1.3 million were made.

It would be more successful than OTL, but that's a really low bar
What's the bar to actual success?

The M60 of this TL is still likely to be a Frankenstein of good German MG ideas, done poorly.

I would see 30-06 retained for the MMG role, with the new 7mm for the LMG/SAW area.

I feel the AR10 would do better in the new Battle Rifle competition, maybe enough to overturn that nasty M14 from Springfield from winning, even with the Ordnance thumb on the scale fore it.

AR10 as main battle rifle would slow the AR15, possible to a dead stop, or just remains an USAF guard gun.
So OTL M60? I'd think with having to deal with less severe recoil would fix a bunch of the issues of the M60 IOTL, as it wouldn't have to be as heavy and the ammo would be significantly lighter.
Yes, I also see the .30-06 retained for those roles, with the .280 British or whatever getting those roles.
The only issue with the AR-10 is how late it would be to the party, by then the M14 is basically already picked and probably substantially better than the OTL version, which would weight it even further as the go to gun of the future.

The AR-15 is going to happen for the air force, the question is whether it even gets the nod for the army if the M14 is working well enough.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Given this is a 7x45mm and the .280 British was 7x43mm Western Europe would go to the German round and the British one would not exist. Except the French maybe..... Being a, by then, a well known,tried and trusted round they would invite USA to either join in or play by themselves on this. That might even bring the French onside. If the USA joined in what rifle/MG they stuffed it down would be up to them. I imagine the Europeans would go with an ATL Rifle no9 or ATL FAL. The French would do an ATL MAS 49. For an MG an ATL Tanden or MAG. The West Germans could do a licence made no9 as FN still is not going to sell them a licence.
 

Deleted member 1487

Given this is a 7x45mm and the .280 British was 7x43mm Western Europe would go to the German round and the British one would not exist. Except the French maybe..... Being a, by then, a well known,tried and trusted round they would invite USA to either join in or play by themselves on this. That might even bring the French onside. If the USA joined in what rifle/MG they stuffed it down would be up to them. I imagine the Europeans would go with an ATL Rifle no9 or ATL FAL. The French would do an ATL MAS 49. For an MG an ATL Tanden or MAG. The West Germans could do a licence made no9 as FN still is not going to sell them a licence.
I doubt the Germans would go with a bullpup, they never had used one.
 
I'm not sure Britain would be any more willing to sell the Germans a production licence for the No 9 than the Belgians were for the FAL. I suspect the German's would just put the ATL Stg 44 back into production.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm not sure Britain would be any more willing to sell the Germans a production licence for the No 9 than the Belgians were for the FAL. I suspect the German's would just put the ATL Stg 44 back into production.
Why old tech when CETME would have a more modern rifle? Or the AR-10 could be available (the Dutch sold Germany the rights to the CETME rifle after acquiring them from Spain, while another Dutch company held the rights to the AR-10)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NATO: the .30-06 for 'big' MGs (for tanks, AFVs, early helicopters) and snipers; 7mm for LMGs (both belt- and magazine-fed), semi-auto and full-auto rifles; M1 Garand gets a bigger magazine for post-war European armies that can't get quickly the new guns; less impetus for new SMGs due to early adoption of automatic rifles; SCHV round is still developed for specialized roles?
WP: going with the OTL short 7.62, perhaps switch to 6 - 6.5 - 7mm cartridge in 1970s

I'm not sure Britain would be any more willing to sell the Germans a production licence for the No 9 than the Belgians were for the FAL. I suspect the German's would just put the ATL Stg 44 back into production.

STG would've probably been STG 42, ie. available much earlier?
 
The Germans seemed to be toying with "universal" weapons, the MG34 is a LMG, a MMG and rwally their HMG as well as AAMG all on one round in common with the rifle. The FG42 is really a LMG or SAW, an assault rifle or SMG equivalent and the precise fire rifle again on one common round. If you get this new round to perform in a similar manner, especially on a new semi-automatic rifle, you are in step with the concepts I think are in mind. The only weak one would be the MMG/HMG and AAMG roles, 8mm is better there perhaps but reintroduces a second round.

And how worn was the tooling, were they needing to reinvent the ammunition manufacturing anyway? If so a new round is not a big hurdle. If they have lots of 8mm in storage and the machinery to make it ready to roll then it looks expensive.

And how do these 7mm rounds compare to the OTL "intermediates"? Are they closer to 8mm in weight and size and performance or closer to the more modern lighter rounds? Or are they Goldilocks perfect?
 
Why old tech when CETME would have a more modern rifle? Or the AR-10 could be available (the Dutch sold Germany the rights to the CETME rifle after acquiring them from Spain, while another Dutch company held the rights to the AR-10)?
It's not that old and they don't have to pay anyone for the production rights.
 

Deleted member 1487

And how worn was the tooling, were they needing to reinvent the ammunition manufacturing anyway? If so a new round is not a big hurdle. If they have lots of 8mm in storage and the machinery to make it ready to roll then it looks expensive.
That's the rub, there were over a billion 8mm Mauser rounds in stock and the existing machinery for them still existed, which killed the projected 7mm round IOTL. Handwavum the Heer decides the benefits are worth investing in new barrel making equipment (the only thing they'd really need to adopt the new round AFAIK).

And how do these 7mm rounds compare to the OTL "intermediates"? Are they closer to 8mm in weight and size and performance or closer to the more modern lighter rounds? Or are they Goldilocks perfect?
Which intermediates do you mean, the 7.92 Kurz or the the 5.56? It was closer in performance to the 8mm, but with a number of advantages if you look at my "US Army adopts the 6mm caliber" thread which includes a write up about the advantages of the .276 Pedersen cartridge at the very end.
They're about as goldilocks perfect for a 'universal' infantry caliber as you could get at the time and close to the 6.5mm Creedmore/6.8mm SIG cartridges the US army is adopting today. So they aren't as 'good' as the 5.56 in it's niche, it is perfectly in line with modern US army thinking about what sort of cartridge they need now and are planning on using it for all the roles that I suggested in the OP.
 

Deleted member 1487

It's not that old and they don't have to pay anyone for the production rights.
They'd have to recreate it from scratch like they did the MG42 IOTL, i.e. build all new equipment to make it, reverse engineer it because the Allies took all the blue prints, etc.
In the meantime the AR-10 or Cetme would be quite a bit better than a mid/late war design meant for conscripts.
 
That's the rub, there were over a billion 8mm Mauser rounds in stock and the existing machinery for them still existed, which killed the projected 7mm round IOTL. Handwavum the Heer decides the benefits are worth investing in new barrel making equipment (the only thing they'd really need to adopt the new round AFAIK).


Which intermediates do you mean, the 7.92 Kurz or the the 5.56? It was closer in performance to the 8mm, but with a number of advantages if you look at my "US Army adopts the 6mm caliber" thread which includes a write up about the advantages of the .276 Pedersen cartridge at the very end.
They're about as goldilocks perfect for a 'universal' infantry caliber as you could get at the time and close to the 6.5mm Creedmore/6.8mm SIG cartridges the US army is adopting today. So they aren't as 'good' as the 5.56 in it's niche, it is perfectly in line with modern US army thinking about what sort of cartridge they need now and are planning on using it for all the roles that I suggested in the OP.

I think if it was slated to become the primary cartridge for the new universal arms, a semi-auto rifle and true light machinegun then maybe. That sidelines the MP40, and 9mm, pushes the UMG up into MMG/HMG applications, and since we already need to produce a bunch of Kar98 the vacuum is there for the rifle. I like the concept for a true assault rifle, especially in an ATL where the Heer is more serious about a style of warfare and modern arms. I am borrowing this for surviving Imperial Germany where the Mannlicher action is eyed for a semi-auto but no consensus on the 8mm, Germanh can restock A-H with 8mm from that nillion round surplus, maybe the OE, Bulgaria and the rest of their allies too, to make it less costly.
 
Top