Rearm the American Infantry for WWII.

Not sure why you'd think that,
because all the evidence i have points straight to that conclusion
before pederson showed off his rifle and cartridge, all rifle development that i can find is in .30 cal, even though thompsons design could have benefited from using the lighter round
i can't find any competeray writings either defending the .276 or slamming the move back to .30. what i can find in fact compliments the change
and most damning is that in the 50's they still went with 7.62 even though .280 had truman's support and a congress that was willing to pay for it
 
The whole reason for the .276 Pedersen was because the Army didn't think it was possible to have a .30-06 automatic rifle close to the specified weight limit (about 9 pounds, the same as the M1903 and M1917), so they were willing to compromise on the cartridge to hit the weight specification. When they were shown a ZH-29, an automatic rifle firing a full-size rifle cartridge with a weight of less than 10 pounds, the .276 Pedersen was dropped and the program shifted back to .30-06. I think the inertia between the ZH-29 coming to the US and MacArthur's directive to drop .276 was the result of reliability issues with rifles that had been designed for smaller cartridges being rechambered with a larger and more powerful cartridge. Because a sub-10 pound Garand in .30-06 could be made, the Army was able to avoid the pain of introducing and entirely new cartridge.
 
because all the evidence i have points straight to that conclusion
before pederson showed off his rifle and cartridge, all rifle development that i can find is in .30 cal, even though thompsons design could have benefited from using the lighter round
i can't find any competeray writings either defending the .276 or slamming the move back to .30. what i can find in fact compliments the change
and most damning is that in the 50's they still went with 7.62 even though .280 had truman's support and a congress that was willing to pay for it
That would be ignoring the caliber studies of the 1920s and 30s that assessed lethality and work done on 6.5mm intermediate cartridges in the 1920s.
I don't know what you've read on the .276, but I have read criticisms about not adopting it.
In the 1950s that is hardly damning considering it was basically one man the forced the 7.62 on everyone else, Col. Studler, just so he could get his general star and retire with a nicer pension.
 
he whole reason for the .276 Pedersen was because the Army didn't think it was possible to have a .30-06 automatic rifle close to the specified weight limit (about 9 pounds, the same as the M1903 and M1917), so they were willing to compromise on the cartridge to hit the weight specification. W
And from the Pig Board tests, showing that .25 and .27 caliber projectiles were even more damaging than .30
 
With a .276 Pedersen-caliber Garand select-fire rifle would obviate the need for the BAR, a new squad automatic weapon that could be adopted (and has been brought up in this thread) would be an AN/M2 'Stinger' type machine gun. Using the Browning M1919A6 as a template, you could modify it to fire from an open bolt as the RAF did with their .303 Brownings along with adding the AN/M2's belt-box hooks to allow for a belt box to be carried on the weapon; then simply use the same production methods as used for the AN/M2 to lighten the weapon and simplify it's parts.

The only significant modification from the original A6 design I would think, would be incorporating a Quick-Change Barrel system that doesn't require using a wrench to extract the barrel from the front as in the original A6. An MG-34-type system could work, seeing as it would transfer well to use in armoured vehicles and the Army used a similar system in it's M73 tank machine gun postwar (I brought this up in a thread of my own: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/browning-m1919-gpmg.492870/ ).

Replace the BAR bipod, and if you can modify the gun to fire .276 Pedersen then even better; the A6 can be fired from the M2 bipod used by the A4, so now you have a M1919 with a potential 1000 rpm fairing rate that can replace the A4 and 1917A1, and can fulfill a role similar to the MG42 as a squad support machine gun.
 
because all the evidence i have points straight to that conclusion
before pederson showed off his rifle and cartridge, all rifle development that i can find is in .30 cal, even though thompsons design could have benefited from using the lighter round
i can't find any competeray writings either defending the .276 or slamming the move back to .30. what i can find in fact compliments the change
and most damning is that in the 50's they still went with 7.62 even though .280 had truman's support and a congress that was willing to pay for it
Many countries tried to develop an SLR for their standard .30”ish rifle cartridge. All kept hitting the same road block, a overly big and heavy weapon.

The ones that did succeed, were the revolutionary types that suggested a “softer” cartridge. WW1 showed that soldiers didn’t and couldn’t hit past 600m.

Fedorov, had observed real combat, and designed his avtomat for the soldier, not a 1890s theory. He chose 6.5mm with similar power to the future Pedersen.

Germany had tested 7mm +/- in the interwar years. Lucky for all involved they didn’t design and develop a stamped steel intermediate assault rifle before the war!

Pedersens round was ahead of time, or more importantly the general was a dinosaur, and the cavalry and infantry boards were thinkers.
 
If you want something “good” for WW2 US infantry, adopt the 57mm HEAT rifle grenade for a M72 LAW type weapon.

Yes the tube will be steel and heavy, but a small compact “57mm”.

The main bazooka could then be 75mm, two piece company weapon on a light tripod.
 
AN/M2 'Stinger' type machine gun.
Too heavy, too long, ergonomically unacceptable as an LMG. One "wants" an FN Model D or a Ruger. Preferably the Ruger. I've thought about box magazine vs. belt feds and I came to the conclusion that a belt fed Ruger (The T23E1 modified BAR which is clearly akin to the later FN MAG.) is probably the right chicken to hatch the American GPMG egg.
 
If you want something “good” for WW2 US infantry, adopt the 57mm HEAT rifle grenade for a M72 LAW type weapon.

Yes the tube will be steel and heavy, but a small compact “57mm”.
Rifle grenade to throwaway rocket launcher? How about "no." Try a reusable muzzle loader Hale type rocket launcher like the Russians were clever enough to figure out?

The main bazooka could then be 75mm, two piece company weapon on a light tripod.
Like Goddard's WWI rocket mortar?
 
That would be ignoring the caliber studies of the 1920s and 30s that assessed lethality and work done on 6.5mm intermediate cartridges in the 1920s.
at the cost of decreased barrier penetration, ap effectiveness, and suppressive effect
seeing as how a huge part of us doctrine was to use rifles to suppress the enemy position so that other units could get into effective combat range, i'm not willing to give those up without a gpmg at the platoon level, and i'd prefer it at the squad level
The ones that did succeed, were the revolutionary types that suggested a “softer” cartridge.
the RSC M1917, 85k+ built, 8mm lebel,
the only semi auto we can confirm that was used in ground combat in ww1,
that is success
a rifle that you can get into the hands of your troops and provide ammo for

now let's look at what slr's nations adopted during the interwar period
france and the mas 40: 7.5mm (starting production)
poland and the Kbsp wz. 1938M: 8mm (in troop trials)
the ussr and both the AVS-36 and SVT-38/40: 7.62mm
the swiss converted the mondragón design from 7mm to 7.5
the only 6.5 mm slr i can find that was actually adopted in numbers is the ag m/42, and that's because sweden was using it as their standard rifle cartridge

tldr, when nations put their money down they went with less cost and simplified logistics instead of optimising for a single gun
 
And from the Pig Board tests, showing that .25 and .27 caliber projectiles were even more damaging than .30
I think the issue was that the military thought "small bore" calibres just didn't have enough space for payloads like tracer, incendiary and explosive rounds, I could not comment if that was a real or imaginary problem. Mainly some of those would have been more of an issue for the USAAC but no doubt the relatively small US Armed forces would not want the additional strain of multiple calibres for similar jobs.
 
I think the issue was that the military thought "small bore" calibres just didn't have enough space for payloads like tracer, incendiary and explosive rounds, I could not comment if that was a real or imaginary problem.
Everything I've read on the subject, the .276 would be for rifles only, not BAR or Brownings, that would remain in .30-06

But even .30 is too small.
In WWI, the US AEF Air Service got a small number of 11mm Vickers guns, optimized for Balloon Busting
From 'Flying Guns – World War 1: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1914-32' by Emmanuel Gustin and Tony Williams

"More successful was the French development of a Vickers gun in their old 11 mm Gras rifle cartridge (11x59R) together with the Desvignes Mark XI incendiary bullet (which was actually a long-burning tracer), the resultant conversion thereby being known as the 11 mm or Gras Vickers. As with the British .45 in, the lighter bullet permitted a much higher muzzle velocity in the region of 600 m/s. The French were the major users although the USA adopted the weapon and ammunition in late 1917 (both being already manufactured there) and produced the weapons by converting some existing Vickers guns chambered for the 7.62x54R, a Russian order which had been cancelled following Russia's withdrawal from the war. The USA developed their own high-velocity loading with a tracer/incendiary bullet weighing 17.5 g. The guns could be fitted in place of any Vickers, but were reportedly not popular as the recoil was significantly heavier, causing more vibration when firing. However, these weapons were still much in demand at the end of the war, despite the development of similar ammunition for rifle-calibre guns, as the bigger projectiles permitted a much larger filling of incendiary and HE material. The USA continued experimenting with the 11 mm guns into the early 1920s, and manufactured over 500,000 rounds of ammunition for them."


That were replaced by the .50 postwar
 
Too heavy, too long, ergonomically unacceptable as an LMG. One "wants" an FN Model D or a Ruger. Preferably the Ruger. I've thought about box magazine vs. belt feds and I came to the conclusion that a belt fed Ruger (The T23E1 modified BAR which is clearly akin to the later FN MAG.) is probably the right chicken to hatch the American GPMG egg.
The 'Stinger' type gun that I laid out in my post is closer to the M1919A6 (just lighter, with a quick change barrel and open bolt firing) than the actual 'Franken Gun' of OTL. Compared to the T23, this Stinger would probably be equal or slightly lighter in weight (25 pounds vs 26-27 pounds per this thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/fn-fal-instead-of-m14-as-us-armys-battle-rifle.445093/page-2) to the T23. TTL Stinger can also makes use of production lines and techniques that already existed for the M1919 and AN/M2 machine guns.

According to the thread I posted, reducing the length of the T23's receiver and eliminating it's rate reducer would cut down it's weight, maybe to about that of the MG-42 and the Stinger IOTL (c. 25 pounds).
 
The 'Stinger' type gun that I laid out in my post is closer to the M1919A6 (just lighter, with a quick change barrel and open bolt firing) than the actual 'Franken Gun' of OTL. Compared to the T23, this Stinger would probably be equal or slightly lighter in weight (25 pounds vs 26-27 pounds per this thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/fn-fal-instead-of-m14-as-us-armys-battle-rifle.445093/page-2) to the T23. TTL Stinger can also makes use of production lines and techniques that already existed for the M1919 and AN/M2 machine guns.

According to the thread I posted, reducing the length of the T23's receiver and eliminating it's rate reducer would cut down it's weight, maybe to about that of the MG-42 and the Stinger IOTL (c. 25 pounds).

I am somewhat familiar with the RUGER.

since that is an image that I have also cited from from Springfield Arsenal

All of which makes THIS, more infuriating to me. The BREN is so much a squad flexible asset...



A question about the T10/T23E1 light machine gun?

Anyway, perhaps a portable rocket launcher akin to a British version of an RPG might be a better investment than the PIAT?
=========================================================
17. One has little time. I would prefer the Ruger machine gun as it was designed for the 30.06 USG issued ammunition. However, the fact is that the BAR as improved was available in 1935?
As I have noted, the gun as designed and field tested in `1942 was rejected as was for being milled instead of stamped and the extra kilogram of weight was just an excuse to further mask Army Ordnance industrial management incompetence of the program (Not made by Colt. Goddamned politics.).
.
 
ifle grenade to throwaway rocket launcher?
How about "no."
Try a reusable muzzle loader Hale type rocket launcher like the Russians were clever enough to figure out?

History would not agree with you.

The M72 was specially designed to replace rifle grenades post war.

The expanding LAW has been adopted by practically ever nation on the planet. It was copied and evolved by the Soviets.

Late Cold War is was dropped as “obsolete”. Back in real world combat the LAW is back, now in at least its 10th variant.

It took the Soviet continuing develop a reloadable till the 50s to get that to work
C5FBBA4D-5CEA-416B-9D98-B7C756AAEDE2.jpeg
 
According to notice, the Army Contracting Command requires:

  1. M72A7 LAW with Graze Fuze Function and Night Vision Device (NVD) Mount. The M72A7 LAW utilizes a shaped charge warhead, is used against light armored targets and can only be fired in the open field environment.
  2. M72E8 LAW Fire from Enclosure and NVD Mount. The M72E8 LAW utilizes a shaped charge warhead with base detonating fuze, is used against light armored targets and can be fired from within an enclosure.
  3. M72A9 LAW Anti-Structure Munition and NVD Mount. The M72A9 LAW has the capability to penetrate brick, adobe, concrete block, and urban terrain walls, doors and windows in most common Military Operations and can only be fired in the open field environment.
  4. M72E10 LAW Fire from Enclosure Anti-Structure Munition and NVD Mount. The M72E10 LAW contains an enhanced explosives warhead with base detonating fuze, has the capability to penetrate brick, adobe, concrete block, and urban terrain walls and can be fired from within an enclosure.
  5. M72AS Trainer Launchers. The M72AS trainer launcher is the training system for the M72 weapon system.
  6. M72AS 21mm Subcaliber Training Rockets. The 21mm Training rocket is the ammunition for the M72AS training system
  7. M72AS 21mm Subcaliber Inert Trainer. The Inert Training rocket is a classroom tool for the M72AS training system.
  8. Components for Shoulder Launched Munitions Training Systems (various)
 
More of a problem of the haste with which the US Army and Marine Corps conducted it's ground operations than anything else. Australian diggers suffered from booby-traps as well but the casualty rates were no where as high as those of the US forces in Vietnam. Our problem was usually the result of lifted M16 mines from the Barrier Minefield and most of those where in the Long Hai hills.
 
Top