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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

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.
Not sure I buy that. It certainly could fit a family of small arms, but if you look at the Soviet example they adopted the 7.62 intermediate, but still kept the 7.62x54 rimmed cartridge for their MGs and adopted the 12.7mm HMG.

The SMG might be phased out in favor of a box fed magazine select fire rifle similar to the Vollmer carbine, but simplified for mass production via lower quality steel stampings.
This cartridge won't and can't be pushed into the HMG role and given the UMG concept the Germans were on for their MMG/HMGs they'd keep the 7.92 for that, especially given their stockpiles of the cartridge, but SMGs persisted until the 5.56mm carbine killed it permanently. Though the Hungarians did create an SMG version of the 7.62x39 with a 12 inch barrel and muzzle brake. It will probably just not have a front line use and be more a PDW...which means probably no MP40, but something even cheaper and easier to make, like the MP3008

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.
I don't see how they could get away from the 8mm given the non-dismantled war industry and WW1 (or even an ATL without WW1) stockpiles they had. They'd probably pull a 'Czech' and adopt a 8x45mm or even x39mm (the Czechs did that with the 7.62x45 until the Soviets forced the x39mm on them).
 
"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)."

The Nationalist Chinese would be quite happy to have some of that, along with whatever rifles and weapons they can get ahold of. That would fit in nicely with the OTL German advisors to China.
 

Deleted member 1487

"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)."

The Nationalist Chinese would be quite happy to have some of that, along with whatever rifles and weapons they can get ahold of. That would fit in nicely with the OTL German advisors to China.
Part of the problem there is getting compensated for it given that the Japanese took all the ports quickly once they invaded. The Chinese were paying in minerals, which was throttled by how much they could mine prior to that point and then how much they could actually get to the coast to export, which IIRC was gone by 1938.
 
"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)."

The Nationalist Chinese would be quite happy to have some of that, along with whatever rifles and weapons they can get ahold of. That would fit in nicely with the OTL German advisors to China.
Possible POD could be the Versaillis Treaty requires Germany to destroy most of it's stockpile of ammunition and limits what they can produce or keep on hand.


Edit Delete Report
 

Deleted member 1487

Possible POD could be the Versaillis Treaty requires Germany to destroy most of it's stockpile of ammunition and limits what they can produce or keep on hand.
I think it did, but even there there was still a lot of ammo left over. WW1 leftovers were quite large.

Moving on, assuming that NATO does adopt a 7mm caliber post-WW2 based on the influence of experience against the Germans, how would that impact the fighting in Korea and Vietnam? I'm reading more about the Korean war and it would seem that the UN forces would benefit quite a bit from having lighter ammo with less heat build up and easier to manage recoil. All the praise for the BAR seems kind of nuts given how big and heavy it was as well as prone to overheating while having a small magazine capacity for an automatic weapon. Having something comparable to the Pedersen Cartridge in a select fire M1 derivative with a box mag seems like it would seriously upgrade the performance of infantry in that conflict.
 
I think it did, but even there there was still a lot of ammo left over. WW1 leftovers were quite large.

Moving on, assuming that NATO does adopt a 7mm caliber post-WW2 based on the influence of experience against the Germans, how would that impact the fighting in Korea and Vietnam? I'm reading more about the Korean war and it would seem that the UN forces would benefit quite a bit from having lighter ammo with less heat build up and easier to manage recoil. All the praise for the BAR seems kind of nuts given how big and heavy it was as well as prone to overheating while having a small magazine capacity for an automatic weapon. Having something comparable to the Pedersen Cartridge in a select fire M1 derivative with a box mag seems like it would seriously upgrade the performance of infantry in that conflict.


I can't really answer that right now, but regarding the BAR, I've yet to meet anyone who carried it (and that's a fair number of folks, mostly form Legion Posts) who didn't love it. Why? I'll ask around, don't expect to hear back anytime soon though.
 

Deleted member 1487

I can't really answer that right now, but regarding the BAR, I've yet to meet anyone who carried it (and that's a fair number of folks, mostly form Legion Posts) who didn't love it. Why? I'll ask around, don't expect to hear back anytime soon though.
I'd be curious to know if you can find out. My grandfather carried it in the Pacific, but he was a Seabee, so didn't have to use it in combat. He loved it though.
Any chance you could find out if anyone ever used the Johnson LMG? I'd like to know what opinions were on it. IIRC the Marines who got it loved it, but the Israeli version wasn't so good.
 
One guy I can tell you about now. He ended up retiring from the US Army, but had served his first hitch in the USN. This was back in the very early sixties, and he did a good bit of time in Vietnam. He loved it, and said although it was heavy, it was a killer. There is a difference between "cover" and "concealment", and some guys thought they were safe behind largish trees. They weren't, the trees were merely concealment for the BAR, as it shot through them. I will talk to him some more. Another guy I know walked out of Chosen, I'll ask him Sunday at services.
 

Deleted member 1487

One guy I can tell you about now. He ended up retiring from the US Army, but had served his first hitch in the USN. This was back in the very early sixties, and he did a good bit of time in Vietnam. He loved it, and said although it was heavy, it was a killer. There is a difference between "cover" and "concealment", and some guys thought they were safe behind largish trees. They weren't, the trees were merely concealment for the BAR, as it shot through them. I will talk to him some more. Another guy I know walked out of Chosen, I'll ask him Sunday at services.
That brings up a important point about penetration, but IIRC the 7mm Pedersen had as good or better penetration than the standard M2 Ball, but not as good as the AP M2, which was heavier, more accurate, and by late war the standard round used in rifles and the BAR.

I'm reading Col. Hackworth's book right now and in his coverage of the Korean war he mentions a number of times when a resolute BAR gunner would break Chinese attacks and form the base of a squad's morale (i.e. it would provide a major confidence boost when operating and if it went down for any reason could break the unit's will to fight).
 
I'm reading Col. Hackworth's book right now and in his coverage of the Korean war he mentions a number of times when a resolute BAR gunner would break Chinese attacks and form the base of a squad's morale (i.e. it would provide a major confidence boost when operating and if it went down for any reason could break the unit's will to fight).

BARs sound a whole lot different than Garands firing fast
 

Deleted member 1487

BARs sound a whole lot different than Garands firing fast
It does help give credence to the value of having a belt fed at the squad level.

That and the value of having a lighter automatic weapon with a more manageable recoil. I'm even more set on a 6.5-7mm intermediate infantry round separate from a heavy MMG/HMG round. Actually NATO probably would have benefited from just using the 8x63mm Swedish. Or even the 9x63mm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That brings up a important point about penetration, but IIRC the 7mm Pedersen had as good or better penetration than the standard M2 Ball, but not as good as the AP M2, which was heavier, more accurate, and by late war the standard round used in rifles and the BAR.

I'm reading Col. Hackworth's book right now and in his coverage of the Korean war he mentions a number of times when a resolute BAR gunner would break Chinese attacks and form the base of a squad's morale (i.e. it would provide a major confidence boost when operating and if it went down for any reason could break the unit's will to fight).

This is the reply from the first guy I asked.

"
Well, the 30-06 was plenty good enough! TO&E usually called for one AR Rifleman and an Ammo bearer. TO&E was not always applicable. I found the weapon to be accurate enough, to be powerful enough, to be reliable enough, to be fairly easy to use, and all round, no complaints, it did everything I wanted it to do, every time.


It was heavier than the M1, a PITA to clean, the ammo was heavier, I carried the gun and seven mags. The Bren was no better, the RPD no better, and the only choice back then for lighter weight and ammo was the M1 Carbine which was no

comparison. It served as the Squad base of fire, and you could fire it from the hip or the shoulder, so it was maneuverable. It was by no means suitable for hanging a bayonet on.


Plenty of them saw service with ROK and ARVN and those guys were smaller than GI's. So it wasn't impossible by any means. The weapon was heavy, so recoil wasn't that big a deal. In those days, you learned to live with what you had.


Plenty of guys were still WWII and Korea Vets and so, we knew neither the Germans nor Japanese had anything better,

the Russians didn't either with those drum magazines, in fact, nobody had anything better. MG34 and MG42 meant

you had to have ammo mules, the 1919A6 LMG was a good gun, but an ammo hog too and needed a crew."
 

Deleted member 1487

Thanks for sharing the stories and opinions of the guys who actually used them.
It would be interesting to have them test out some of the modern options and what they'd think of those in comparison.
 
Thanks for sharing the stories and opinions of the guys who actually used them.
It would be interesting to have them test out some of the modern options and what they'd think of those in comparison.

The US Army tested an all BAR squad and variations with added AR-men. As what we call a SAW the BAR pointed the way and instilled confidence in the Army squad to fight and win. I still think it is outclassed by the MG34 despite the logistics burden. If the Germans had switched to a primary cartridge capable of giving them a semi-auto skin to Garand then they likely stay with the MG but could be compelled to either go full-auto at Squad or add a SAW or both.
 

Deleted member 1487

The US Army tested an all BAR squad and variations with added AR-men. As what we call a SAW the BAR pointed the way and instilled confidence in the Army squad to fight and win. I still think it is outclassed by the MG34 despite the logistics burden. If the Germans had switched to a primary cartridge capable of giving them a semi-auto skin to Garand then they likely stay with the MG but could be compelled to either go full-auto at Squad or add a SAW or both.
They tested a lot of things, but eventually found a light rifle only squad superior until they developed a lighter weight belt fed SAW. I think you're forgetting that the BAR was replaced with the M60 to copy German doctrine and found that was too heavy and the ammo too heavy to really work for them, so that is really what pointed toward the M249 SAW. Yes in WW2 the BAR was the SAW, but everyone already had something like that back in WW1, so the BAR was simply copying what was already going on with the Lewis Gun and was innovative for the period, but by WW2 it was a throwback compared to even the Swedish and Belgian modernized versions.

Frankly ANY automatic weapon at the squad level instills confidence, which is why the light rifle only squad was judged superior to multiple BARs+semi-auto rifle squad. Certainly a non-belt fed weapon would be outclassed by a belt fed in some ways, but weight is a concern and the BAR was considerably lighter and IIRC cheaper even than the MG42, which makes it easier to coordinate with the squad. One of the weaknesses of the belt fed full powered battle cartridge MG at the squad level is how freakin' heavy it is as well as all the ammo needed for it, which made it hard to keep up with the squad and focused nearly all the firepower of the squad into one weapon, which if it went down for any reason left the rest of the squad SOL. For that reason the Germans were eager to replace it entirely up to the platoon level with the STG, but found that you simply couldn't, but as a platoon weapon the coordination problems went way down, as it could use it's range rather than trying to keep up with the much lighter infantry and could be concentrated firepower under the near direct command of the platoon command for best effect. Of course for that to work you need a select fire infantry weapon for all the squadies to make up for the lack of an sustained automatic weapon as the basis of their firepower.

I mean IOTL the Germans did have a cartridge that let them develop a semi-auto rifle the G43, which necessitated the retention of the MG at the squad level, but the STG meant they didn't. Having a more powerful intermediate could still allow for a EM-2 like rifle (just in the conventional layout), which even with the heavy 140 grain bullet was still controllable in full auto thanks to the design of the rifle and the relatively limited propellant charge (5-10% less than that of the Pedersen IIRC). Still even a Pedersen round is pretty soft shooting based on the limited footage I can find of the original Pedersen rifle being fired with original ammo, so select fire versions would be perfectly viable if close to the weight of the K98k and that would allow for the MG to be dropped at the squad level, as every man would have the equivalent to a BAR. In fact with a heavy barrel version 2 or so per squad could be used in that 'full time' role. It's not a belt fed, but quite a beat cheaper to make, a major bonus for a huge WW2 style conscript army, which is more impacted by material shortages than by having the finest mouse trap man could design, something the Europeans understood in small arms during WW2, but the US didn't though they didn't have to really worry about it due to the insane productive capacity of the economy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They tested a lot of things, but eventually found a light rifle only squad superior until they developed a lighter weight belt fed SAW. I think you're forgetting that the BAR was replaced with the M60 to copy German doctrine and found that was too heavy and the ammo too heavy to really work for them, so that is really what pointed toward the M249 SAW. Yes in WW2 the BAR was the SAW, but everyone already had something like that back in WW1, so the BAR was simply copying what was already going on with the Lewis Gun and was innovative for the period, but by WW2 it was a throwback compared to even the Swedish and Belgian modernized versions.

Frankly ANY automatic weapon at the squad level instills confidence, which is why the light rifle only squad was judged superior to multiple BARs+semi-auto rifle squad. Certainly a non-belt fed weapon would be outclassed by a belt fed in some ways, but weight is a concern and the BAR was considerably lighter and IIRC cheaper even than the MG42, which makes it easier to coordinate with the squad. One of the weaknesses of the belt fed full powered battle cartridge MG at the squad level is how freakin' heavy it is as well as all the ammo needed for it, which made it hard to keep up with the squad and focused nearly all the firepower of the squad into one weapon, which if it went down for any reason left the rest of the squad SOL. For that reason the Germans were eager to replace it entirely up to the platoon level with the STG, but found that you simply couldn't, but as a platoon weapon the coordination problems went way down, as it could use it's range rather than trying to keep up with the much lighter infantry and could be concentrated firepower under the near direct command of the platoon command for best effect. Of course for that to work you need a select fire infantry weapon for all the squadies to make up for the lack of an sustained automatic weapon as the basis of their firepower.

I mean IOTL the Germans did have a cartridge that let them develop a semi-auto rifle the G43, which necessitated the retention of the MG at the squad level, but the STG meant they didn't. Having a more powerful intermediate could still allow for a EM-2 like rifle (just in the conventional layout), which even with the heavy 140 grain bullet was still controllable in full auto thanks to the design of the rifle and the relatively limited propellant charge (5-10% less than that of the Pedersen IIRC). Still even a Pedersen round is pretty soft shooting based on the limited footage I can find of the original Pedersen rifle being fired with original ammo, so select fire versions would be perfectly viable if close to the weight of the K98k and that would allow for the MG to be dropped at the squad level, as every man would have the equivalent to a BAR. In fact with a heavy barrel version 2 or so per squad could be used in that 'full time' role. It's not a belt fed, but quite a beat cheaper to make, a major bonus for a huge WW2 style conscript army, which is more impacted by material shortages than by having the finest mouse trap man could design, something the Europeans understood in small arms during WW2, but the US didn't.

Thus my preference is to leap frog the semi-auto rifle and push the MG to a supporting role deployed from Platoon or higher echelon with a fully automatic rifle equipped squad. The caveat is that even the Soviets clung to an automatic rifle as supporting MG at Squad and must have had reason to do so. I often wonder why they kept the RPD or RPK. And I find it a bit too progressive for a 1920s era Army to see it's way to this. But you have all the ingredients, who can change the mindset? Germany seems to have gotten on the path, was it only the restraints on their arms and army that delayed them to miss a semi-auto but gain a GPMG? Or is there more to the evolution?
 

Deleted member 1487

Thus my preference is to leap frog the semi-auto rifle and push the MG to a supporting role deployed from Platoon or higher echelon with a fully automatic rifle equipped squad. The caveat is that even the Soviets clung to an automatic rifle as supporting MG at Squad and must have had reason to do so. I often wonder why they kept the RPD or RPK. And I find it a bit too progressive for a 1920s era Army to see it's way to this. But you have all the ingredients, who can change the mindset? Germany seems to have gotten on the path, was it only the restraints on their arms and army that delayed them to miss a semi-auto but gain a GPMG? Or is there more to the evolution?
Same reason the USMC uses the M27 IAR in addition to the M4 carbine. Having a weapon capable of greater sustained fire than the ordinary select fire service rifle is pretty important. See the Battle of Wanat, rifles overheat quickly in rapid fire mode, automatic rifles can last longer. There is a youtuber who does rifle meltdown vidoes and found the standard AK47 could only make it about 270 rounds on full auto before locking up (barrel drooped and separated from the gas tube), but a heavy barreled version that was similar to the RPK lasted something like twice that.
The RPD is a belt fed and light and proved itself in combat not least of which in Vietnam; it suffered from a number of downsides, including having a fixed barrel, but it was pretty damn useful and only gave way to the RPK due to it being a lot cheaper to make due to commonality with the AKM.

Yes a 1920s-30s army was limited by mindset and funding issues (BTW have you ever read the book "Social History of the Machine Gun"? It really covers the mindset issue very well), but it isn't totally outside the realm, as even in 1918 the Germans were writing operations research reports demanding a rifle with only an 800m capability due to the reality of the ranges that combat happened at, while the US also developed the Pedersen Device during WW1 to adapt existing rifles into weapons that were only useful out to 300 yards, but were semi-auto and have a larger capacity magazine as it was judged that the realities of combat made that more useful than the existing bolt action rifle (with the option to convert back if needed for longer range engagements). Even the early work on the US SLR program in the 1920s-30s was about developing what was for the time an intermediate cartridge (yes in part due to the thought that it would be easier to make an SLR with a lighter cartridge).

Germany's efforts were constrained by funding in the 1920s-30s and when it became available they were playing catch up in development of an SLR while having to prioritize rapid rearmament, which ultimately killed the prospects for adopting a new cartridge/rifle that wasn't stamped metal and didn't use scarce strategic metals. So they went the cheap route and developed a Universal MG (not a GPMG), as that was deemed the best bang for their buck at the time of limited budgets that used their existing cartridge. If you want the history of it the Collector's Grade publication "Sturmgewehr!" covers this very well from before WW1 through WW2. They also probably cover it to some degree in their book on the MG34/42 as well, though I haven't read that one.
 
Same reason the USMC uses the M27 IAR in addition to the M4 carbine. Having a weapon capable of greater sustained fire than the ordinary select fire service rifle is pretty important. See the Battle of Wanat, rifles overheat quickly in rapid fire mode, automatic rifles can last longer. There is a youtuber who does rifle meltdown vidoes and found the standard AK47 could only make it about 270 rounds on full auto before locking up (barrel drooped and separated from the gas tube), but a heavy barreled version that was similar to the RPK lasted something like twice that.
The RPD is a belt fed and light and proved itself in combat not least of which in Vietnam; it suffered from a number of downsides, including having a fixed barrel, but it was pretty damn useful and only gave way to the RPK due to it being a lot cheaper to make due to commonality with the AKM.

Yes a 1920s-30s army was limited by mindset and funding issues (BTW have you ever read the book "Social History of the Machine Gun"? It really covers the mindset issue very well), but it isn't totally outside the realm, as even in 1918 the Germans were writing operations research reports demanding a rifle with only an 800m capability due to the reality of the ranges that combat happened at, while the US also developed the Pedersen Device during WW1 to adapt existing rifles into weapons that were only useful out to 300 yards, but were semi-auto and have a larger capacity magazine as it was judged that the realities of combat made that more useful than the existing bolt action rifle (with the option to convert back if needed for longer range engagements). Even the early work on the US SLR program in the 1920s-30s was about developing what was for the time an intermediate cartridge (yes in part due to the thought that it would be easier to make an SLR with a lighter cartridge).

Germany's efforts were constrained by funding in the 1920s-30s and when it became available they were playing catch up in development of an SLR while having to prioritize rapid rearmament, which ultimately killed the prospects for adopting a new cartridge/rifle that wasn't stamped metal and didn't use scarce strategic metals. So they went the cheap route and developed a Universal MG (not a GPMG), as that was deemed the best bang for their buck at the time of limited budgets that used their existing cartridge. If you want the history of it the Collector's Grade publication "Sturmgewehr!" covers this very well from before WW1 through WW2. They also probably cover it to some degree in their book on the MG34/42 as well, though I haven't read that one.

This is why I tend to believe the Germans are first to adopt first the lighter rifle and next automatic fire capability. The war taught them the shorter ranges and higher volumes of fire needed. In theory they should have arrived at the StG right out of the gate. A better SMG that does the "rifle" tasks too. A lighter MG is still of value. Better still to add a true light MG, or SAW in common cartridge to the "rifle". Thus we look at the "intermediate" cartridge as ideal, can be used full auto, can be used for accurate fire, can be used in a lMG for suppression, can be used for anti material, the Jack of all Trades. Anything smaller seems to force the dichotomy of a rifle round and a MG round, otherwise in theory we can dump the MG for a SAW, especially where we have a heavier round for a HMG, but that might require something in between the 8mm and 13mm.

In OTL it is logical to recycle the existing rifle cartridge into a semi-auto paired with a UMG. A Squad employing the Garand and an MG34 would be the next step from M1903 and BAR. Too far to get an AK47 starting in 1918 but certainly not bizarre given the utility and limitations of the SMG. I think it depends upon how progressive the leadership is and the necessity being obvious.

For me I am thinking the Vollmer moves front and center. In parallel the MG34 gets developed to replace the venerable MG08 with it also getting replaced at fixed use by the 13mm MG in development at the time. That leap frogs me past the interim stage of Garand.

On your suggestion I did buy that pricey volume, thank you!
 

Deleted member 1487

This is why I tend to believe the Germans are first to adopt first the lighter rifle and next automatic fire capability. The war taught them the shorter ranges and higher volumes of fire needed. In theory they should have arrived at the StG right out of the gate. A better SMG that does the "rifle" tasks too. A lighter MG is still of value. Better still to add a true light MG, or SAW in common cartridge to the "rifle". Thus we look at the "intermediate" cartridge as ideal, can be used full auto, can be used for accurate fire, can be used in a lMG for suppression, can be used for anti material, the Jack of all Trades. Anything smaller seems to force the dichotomy of a rifle round and a MG round, otherwise in theory we can dump the MG for a SAW, especially where we have a heavier round for a HMG, but that might require something in between the 8mm and 13mm.
The Soviets recognized it too after the Winter War, but apparently didn't have the war experience to realize that an intermediate cartridge was the answer.
The StG story is a complex one and involves Hitler sidelining the project for years. Part of it though was also the flawed thinking of the STG as a heavy SMG and starting it as an open bolt weapon, effectively an automatic rifle/heavy smg. Accuracy was problematic so they switched it to an open bolt weapon. I think the idea of it as a 'light' automatic rifle is interesting though and might have been successful if ammo was plentiful enough. Of course in that case an RPD type weapon could do that role better.
An 8mm Kurz belt fed MG42 style weapon is also an interesting thought. Part of the problem though with the jack of all trades is that it is the master of none, so even with a 7mm intermediate you still need an HMG/MMG round with greater range.

For a heavy round I think the French were right when developing their 9x66mm MAS, as it was basically the early version of the modern .338 Norma LWMMG round.
You could make that with a really heavy long 9mm bullet on a necked down 13mm cartridge case. For some insane reason they actually did try that with a 7.92mm bullet, but obviously the didn't work out. They had a mechanically primed version of their 13mm cartridge to base it on:
http://www.municion.org/13x64/13x64Mecanic.htm

In OTL it is logical to recycle the existing rifle cartridge into a semi-auto paired with a UMG. A Squad employing the Garand and an MG34 would be the next step from M1903 and BAR. Too far to get an AK47 starting in 1918 but certainly not bizarre given the utility and limitations of the SMG. I think it depends upon how progressive the leadership is and the necessity being obvious.
Pre-WW1 there already existed semi-auto rifles designs by Mauser and Mannlicher, they just needed to pair it with intermediate cartridges to make them successful and add a select fire ability. Of course arguably there was already a WW1 type AK weapon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribeyrolles_1918_automatic_carbine

For me I am thinking the Vollmer moves front and center. In parallel the MG34 gets developed to replace the venerable MG08 with it also getting replaced at fixed use by the 13mm MG in development at the time. That leap frogs me past the interim stage of Garand.
The Vollmer was hampered by cartridge selection and being...suboptimal for mass manufacturing, which is why it was rejected IOTL. Of course by then the 8mm Kurz didn't exist and when it did a new rifle project was started based around it, which IIRC only started in 1940.
The problem with the 13mm MG is that the only production model by 1940 was the electrically primed model and that was only available in fighter aircraft until 1941. So it came pretty late to change the paradigm with that.

On your suggestion I did buy that pricey volume, thank you!
Hope you enjoy, in my opinion it is worth the price, I hope you feel the same when you get it.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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.
The U.S. is not going to change unless one thing happens. MacArthur needs to be out of the picture. He PERSONALLY killed the .276 since the U.S. had so much .30-06 in inventory after WW I (a couple BILLION rounds) and he wanted to save the money (understandable in a way, considering the eyedropper Congress used to dole out the Army's budget) The irony of this is that the massive stock of WW I vintage M1906 Ball was gone by 1936, used for training, and the 1926 redesign cartridge proved to be too "hot" for most U.S. firing ranges, so a whole NEW design, the .30 Cal M2 Ball had to be ramped up.

So either MacArthur needs to be gone as Chief of Staff (maybe forced out after the Bonus Army fiasco?) or he need to change his mind, assuming that was something that he was capable of doing.
 
Top