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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

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.
In terms of the Pedersen cartridge in 1932 I don't think swapping out MacArthur would change things. The Great Depression was worsening, not getting better, and waiting things to improve wasn't working. As you say congressional oversight/limiting of the budget was the real issue and MacArthur simply was acting on the pressure he was either getting or perceived would come if he authorized buying new ammo. In hindsight the irony of it all was that they should have given what went on with the M2 Ball ammo, but even there the change in adopting the M2 bullet on already set up production lines was a pittance compared to buying the brand new Pedersen ammo. So while MacArthur was the man wielding the pen that killed the Pedersen round, I don't think any other officer in that position would have been able to do anything else given the budget. Had they adopted it sooner maybe that would have helped or waited to adopt the Garand until the budget situation improved, as the actual war model wasn't even developed until 1940 when they finally abandoned the muzzle gas trap system. Perhaps had they waited until the later 1930s to adopt the rifle/cartridge combo it would have been financially feasible. Things weren't developed enough for an earlier adoption before the Great Depression killed the budget. I doubt a 1930-31 adoption would have been fiscally viable at the time either, which is about as early as it would have been feasible to get the army to adopt the Garand, MacArthur or no.
 
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.

I think this is why the "intermediate" cartridge is so well liked, it has greater lethality than the modern 5.56/5.45 and can attempt to both be anti-material (armor-piercing) and defeat personnel armor. But those are far too modern of concepts with hindsight galore. Post-Great War the emphasis is to economize, thus re-focus to the sub-500m ranges where actual combat is taking place. Some form of "kurz" round utilizes the exiting infrastructure and "feels" common to existing ammunition (especially 8mm Mauser). Evolutionary I think we end up with either a kurz round or your 7mm new round where a little more funding and some progressive thinking prevails. In an ideal world I think it sees a new 9mm round for the UMG and something at 13-15mm for a true HMG, performing mostly the AAMG role and vehicle mounted if 20mm is too heavy. Germany has the 13mm TuF developing to a HMG post-war, it likely cannot see the value of anything heavier than 8mm Mauser with that developing so we should see them in search of a lesser round for rifles/carbines and whatever semi- or full-auto they develop. The US Army has the Garand, if it goes to a Petersen round, then I still see a role for the Carbine but it is a maybe item. In theory the SMG should bridge that gap. I think we entrench the BAR as a "heavy" weapon unless you can find an American UMG, get a SAW or go full-auto versus the Garand. I will ponder if the French go as revolutionary as I think small arms were poised for but for the legacy ammunition pile, misplaced lessons of the war and top brass being married to a heavy long-ranged hard hitting rifle paradigm. The British should have, they had the small professional army and the greater need to rearm with a new round so they had in theory a clean sheet.

I think I will end up handwaiving the Vollmer to a proto-StG AK47 before we knew we needed that leap frog. Paired with a UMG they should be quite modern through the 1950s. In my ATL the A-H survives so Britain does not raid the Czech arms basket, that sends me off to get them to develop their own arms or stumble forward on the last war's left overs. The Lewis Gun should get them closer to a UMG though. My French are likely Versailles-ed so they are no longer a factor. But maybe their engineers run off to Russia. And here the butterflies take me away from the thrust of the discussion.

Indeed, I look forward to the read! I have a lighter book on the MG development, I gloss that it could have been tracked online by 1930 without Versailles. I am making the MG34 an MG29 to tease with no such limitations and begin to divorce references from OTL and the Third Reich's arsenal. A side project is tracing forward the WW1 aircraft manufacturers to wash away the familiar names. To help the readers I do try to keep it parallel so it is not all fictional and we who know the hardware can spot it under its thin clothes.
 

Deleted member 1487

I think this is why the "intermediate" cartridge is so well liked, it has greater lethality than the modern 5.56/5.45 and can attempt to both be anti-material (armor-piercing) and defeat personnel armor. But those are far too modern of concepts with hindsight galore. Post-Great War the emphasis is to economize, thus re-focus to the sub-500m ranges where actual combat is taking place. Some form of "kurz" round utilizes the exiting infrastructure and "feels" common to existing ammunition (especially 8mm Mauser). Evolutionary I think we end up with either a kurz round or your 7mm new round where a little more funding and some progressive thinking prevails. In an ideal world I think it sees a new 9mm round for the UMG and something at 13-15mm for a true HMG, performing mostly the AAMG role and vehicle mounted if 20mm is too heavy. Germany has the 13mm TuF developing to a HMG post-war, it likely cannot see the value of anything heavier than 8mm Mauser with that developing so we should see them in search of a lesser round for rifles/carbines and whatever semi- or full-auto they develop. The US Army has the Garand, if it goes to a Petersen round, then I still see a role for the Carbine but it is a maybe item. In theory the SMG should bridge that gap. I think we entrench the BAR as a "heavy" weapon unless you can find an American UMG, get a SAW or go full-auto versus the Garand. I will ponder if the French go as revolutionary as I think small arms were poised for but for the legacy ammunition pile, misplaced lessons of the war and top brass being married to a heavy long-ranged hard hitting rifle paradigm. The British should have, they had the small professional army and the greater need to rearm with a new round so they had in theory a clean sheet.
What's your definition of 'intermediate cartridge'? I don't think the .276 Pedersen qualified. It had equivalent energy at 200 yards to the 7.62x39 at the muzzle, which is a true intermediate cartridge (which is the entire idea of the 'kurz' round).
I'd also question the validity of the idea that the 5.56/5.45 were less lethal than the 7.62x39; within at least 200m that's simply not true, hence the shift by everyone away from the intermediates to the SCHV rounds.

The Germans never showed an inclination toward a ground 13mm MG IOTL and only picked up on it after the US introduced the .50 cal to the Bundeswehr. There were of course 15mm cannons pushed into a limited ground role, but that seems more ad hoc and dual purpose as AAA. Not sure a surviving A-H or German empire would go for it either given that their answer for anti-material weapons was dedicated AT guns, AT rifles in ultra magnum 7.92mm, 20mm FLAK guns, or their universal 7.92x57.

The BAR is way too much gun for the 7mm Pedersen, so I'd think we'd see either the BAR continuing as is or the Johnson LMG in 7mm taking over. Without a doubt the lightness of the Pedersen would mean a carbine version instead of an M1 carbine, while the SMG probably doesn't happen for the US. I'm thinking probably a select fire Pedersen based rifle happens instead.

The French were sent on the 7.5mm.
 
What's your definition of 'intermediate cartridge'? I don't think the .276 Pedersen qualified. It had equivalent energy at 200 yards to the 7.62x39 at the muzzle, which is a true intermediate cartridge (which is the entire idea of the 'kurz' round).
I'd also question the validity of the idea that the 5.56/5.45 were less lethal than the 7.62x39; within at least 200m that's simply not true, hence the shift by everyone away from the intermediates to the SCHV rounds.

The Germans never showed an inclination toward a ground 13mm MG IOTL and only picked up on it after the US introduced the .50 cal to the Bundeswehr. There were of course 15mm cannons pushed into a limited ground role, but that seems more ad hoc and dual purpose as AAA. Not sure a surviving A-H or German empire would go for it either given that their answer for anti-material weapons was dedicated AT guns, AT rifles in ultra magnum 7.92mm, 20mm FLAK guns, or their universal 7.92x57.

The BAR is way too much gun for the 7mm Pedersen, so I'd think we'd see either the BAR continuing as is or the Johnson LMG in 7mm taking over. Without a doubt the lightness of the Pedersen would mean a carbine version instead of an M1 carbine, while the SMG probably doesn't happen for the US. I'm thinking probably a select fire Pedersen based rifle happens instead.

The French were sent on the 7.5mm.

While I understand your fine points, admittedly I loosely use the "intermediate" for anything less than the "full-sized" 8mm Mauser, .303 Enfield, 30-06 and so forth. If it is not one of those and not something truly light like .30 or 5.56 then it is an "in between", a range of concepts, proposals, experiments and debating points.

5.56 has proven lethality, unfortunately I think its current criticism is its inability to be an effective penetrator of armor, for that you need something more, and so far that appears to be 7.62 or something new.

Maschinengewehr 18 Tank und Flieger or MG 18 TuF, was a German dual-purpose heavy machine gun designed to fill both anti-tank and anti-aircraft roles. Developed at the end of the First World War it fired the same 13.25 × 92 mm SR or tankpatrone 18 armor-piercing round used by the Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr anti-tank rifle. To quote the Wikipedia. I suspect they wanted something more potent for ground defense that could be employed as an AAMG and anti-tank wepon, in other words the M2 HB. This will replace the MG08 as HMG, the MG34 may or may not be used in the infantry as both iMG/MMG and HMG.

At bottom I follow this discussion because I feel the "kurz" is likely too much wartime improvisation rather than what Germany would deliberately develop. Your proposal herein feels more plausible for something purposely developed. As we know the US Army nearly pursued a similar switch to a new caliber and ammunition design. Oddly in my ATL I think the roles are reversed, it is Germany that has too much surplus ammo and entrenched bias to go new but a USA that never went to war has more freedom to experiment. I like to see how parallels exist and in the alternatives how the path taken feels a lot like one we know.
 

Deleted member 1487

While I understand your fine points, admittedly I loosely use the "intermediate" for anything less than the "full-sized" 8mm Mauser, .303 Enfield, 30-06 and so forth. If it is not one of those and not something truly light like .30 or 5.56 then it is an "in between", a range of concepts, proposals, experiments and debating points.
Historically it has meant an intermediate between the pistol caliber rounds (up to 9x25mm) and full powered battle rifle rounds (the weakest being the 6.5mm Arisaka and .276 Pedersen).

The .30 Carbine is actually pretty darn near Intermediate. The 5.56 is something else entirely, the SCHV class.

5.56 has proven lethality, unfortunately I think its current criticism is its inability to be an effective penetrator of armor, for that you need something more, and so far that appears to be 7.62 or something new.
Yeah...now they're going for something like piercing Class IV body armor at 800m or something, which is why they are basically necking down the 7.62 NATO to a 6.8mm EPR bullet for their next gen weapons.

Maschinengewehr 18 Tank und Flieger or MG 18 TuF, was a German dual-purpose heavy machine gun designed to fill both anti-tank and anti-aircraft roles. Developed at the end of the First World War it fired the same 13.25 × 92 mm SR or tankpatrone 18 armor-piercing round used by the Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr anti-tank rifle. To quote the Wikipedia. I suspect they wanted something more potent for ground defense that could be employed as an AAMG and anti-tank wepon, in other words the M2 HB. This will replace the MG08 as HMG, the MG34 may or may not be used in the infantry as both iMG/MMG and HMG.
Huh, surprised I never heard of that one before. Thanks for clueing me in.
Based on it's performance it was NOT an AAA weapon, the muzzle velocity was WAY too low for that. It was a pure AT MG. It was only meant for that, nothing more. German concepts of a 'heavy' machine gun were one that could be used out to 4000m for indirect barrage fire in large amounts, which the 13mm gun couldn't achieve due to the size of the bullet and low ROF of the weapon, not to mention the insane weight of the gun+carriage. That's why the MG 34/42 were meant for that role, as they could saturate a piece of ground with indirect fire cheaply, more cheaply than a mortar. This 13mm gun is the opposite of that and really only useful in it's special role as an anti-tank/material weapon.

At bottom I follow this discussion because I feel the "kurz" is likely too much wartime improvisation rather than what Germany would deliberately develop. Your proposal herein feels more plausible for something purposely developed. As we know the US Army nearly pursued a similar switch to a new caliber and ammunition design. Oddly in my ATL I think the roles are reversed, it is Germany that has too much surplus ammo and entrenched bias to go new but a USA that never went to war has more freedom to experiment. I like to see how parallels exist and in the alternatives how the path taken feels a lot like one we know.
Yeah it does seem like the Kurz was a wartime expedient rather than a desired choice. Depending on the specific scenario you're probably right about the US...except for their pathological bias through the late 1800s through the first half of the 20th century for marksmen long range basic rifles and finding the best one for shooting tournaments instead of combat.
 
5.56 has proven lethality, unfortunately I think its current criticism is its inability to be an effective penetrator of armor, for that you need something more, and so far that appears to be 7.62 or something new.
Armor wasn't really a thing till the US took the lead in that, first with designs for the Great War of Manganese Steel that ended before they could be fielded, then Nylon at the end of WWII, then Kevlar followed by having non-metallic plates.

No other Armed Force was pushing for armor the way the US did

The old SS109 of the end of the Cold War could penetrate a Soviet Helmet at 600M, how much more do you want?

Back to the old kill a horse at 1000yards stuff, short circuiting the whol reason for going away from the 30-06 in the first place?

One cartridge just can't do everything.
 

Deleted member 1487

Maschinengewehr 18 Tank und Flieger or MG 18 TuF, was a German dual-purpose heavy machine gun designed to fill both anti-tank and anti-aircraft roles. Developed at the end of the First World War it fired the same 13.25 × 92 mm SR or tankpatrone 18 armor-piercing round used by the Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr anti-tank rifle. To quote the Wikipedia. I suspect they wanted something more potent for ground defense that could be employed as an AAMG and anti-tank wepon, in other words the M2 HB. This will replace the MG08 as HMG, the MG34 may or may not be used in the infantry as both iMG/MMG and HMG.
Well now I've got one for you:
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2013/01/unsual-firearms-gast-gun.html
Plans were also made to manufacture a variant that fired 13x92 mm. TuF ammunition with curved box magazines.
gast-curved-mags.jpg

Historically such a system was turned into the modern Russian autocannon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-23
GSh-23L_cannon.jpg
 
Well now I've got one for you:
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2013/01/unsual-firearms-gast-gun.html


Historically such a system was turned into the modern Russian autocannon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-23
GSh-23L_cannon.jpg

By looks alone I rather love this beast! Seems we are getting Germany to adopt or employ all the meanest toys! Shotguns, Assault Rifles, Heavy Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, Rockets, Flame Throwers, and next it will be Terminators! My God we are good!
 

Deleted member 1487

By looks alone I rather love this beast! Seems we are getting Germany to adopt or employ all the meanest toys! Shotguns, Assault Rifles, Heavy Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, Rockets, Flame Throwers, and next it will be Terminators! My God we are good!
Well that is a Soviet design.
Though historically the Gast Gun was adopted, but not used before the end of the war. Without losing Germany could have arguably developed something out of it.
 
Well that is a Soviet design.
Though historically the Gast Gun was adopted, but not used before the end of the war. Without losing Germany could have arguably developed something out of it.

I was assuming we were doing this in 13.25mm or even 15mm, the preferred or available German heavy cartridges. Tripod or vehicle mounted, ghastly report, devastating against infantry in the open.
 

Deleted member 1487

I was assuming we were doing this in 13.25mm or even 15mm, the preferred or available German heavy cartridges. Tripod or vehicle mounted, ghastly report, devastating against infantry in the open.
Since Gast did develop the 13x92mm TuF in a what if with a surviving German Empire after WW1 (not sure that Gast would have developed his gun system without WW1) it is likely that the cartridge and system would be continually developed. They'd probably consider 15mm and larger as well eventually, though I'm not sure it would be all that useful other than as an aircraft gun or maybe a FLAK point defense weapon. I'd imagine for a ground role, which I don't think is necessarily guaranteed once armor develops more, it would be a single barreled weapon rather than a Gast system and probably a 20mm FLAK weapon rather than an HMG. The US seems pretty unique in having an HMG in the .50 caliber range for anti-material use, everyone else seemed to treat them as an autocannon and used them for AA work rather than ground firing. Besides the larger caliber HE rounds work better in the ground role than a solid shot 13mm. Even the HE content of a 13mm round isn't particularly great.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top