Rearm the American Infantry for WWII.

[Deleted member 1487]

M20 RR
114 pounds
Optics for direct and indirect fire
over 7000 yards indirect range, but 400 yards realistic for hitting tanks
HEAT, HE and WP 1000fps velocity typical, with HEAT 4" penetration

RPG-2
10 pounds
Iron sights
HEAT, 7" penetration.
100 Meters effective, 200 max 275fps velocity

The M20 was never really used for indirect fire AFAIK and 400 yards is insanely optimistic for hitting a tank. I've read accounts from Korea where hitting bunkers at 300 yards was too difficult with it. Again they never really lived up to expectation.

The RPG-2 has the advantages of weight and size, so they could get in close without much issue and do damage. Read all about how deadly the RPG was in Vietnam.

 

[Blue cat]

It's probably not as important as everything else, but perhaps a simpler, cheaper SMG? As much as I love the Thompson, it's not the most practical weapon logistically; it was still $50 a unit in it's M1A1 form, after all. Perhaps look at an earlier Grease Gun, or even something in 9mm for commonality with British and German weapons?

As I mentioned in another thread, run comprehensive pre war trials of the SMG and ammo so decades later we don't need to read accounts on the internet of WW2 vintage SMG rounds failing to penetrate heavy clothing and similar items. Maybe look at what happens if ammo that only just meets spec when it is made, further degrades during storage, is subjected to temperate extremes etc.

My $.02 maybe hastily produced war time ammo that combined with sub optimal storage and or temperature extremes may not have always worked as expected in use during WW2.

Edit to add: This comment was mostly made in the context of the U.S. changing SMG calibers. I seem to recall that the .45 / Thompson saw some pre WW2 use.

 

[Dave Howery]

one of the things to be considered too is just what drives this innovation... the US was a unique member of the Allies in its lack of incentive to do all this rearming. It hadn't fought a major war since WW1, didn't have Hitler for a neighbor, and scarcely imagined being in a two front war on both sides of the world. The US rather (in)famously had to vastly increase its armed forces in a big hurry and suddenly design a pile of new weapons for them all. Oh, and vastly increase production of oil and about every other resource needed for war. When it put its mind to it, the US could design some decent stuff (AIUI, the early tanks weren't bad), but how do you get them to do it well before the war, and how do they test any of it?

 

[marathag]

The M20 was never really used for indirect fire AFAIK and 400 yards is insanely optimistic for hitting a tank. I've read accounts from Korea where hitting bunkers at 300 yards was too difficult with it. Again they never really lived up to expectation.

The RPG-2 has the advantages of weight and size, so they could get in close without much issue and do damage. Read all about how deadly the RPG was in Vietnam.

Pattons were pretty much immune from the B-40/RPG-2. Now, M-113, yeah, but they aren't the pinnacle of AFVs, either

If Charlie G has less velocity than the M20, it will have slightly worse performance, but both have far better range than RPG-2

Charlie G is the M20, improved, no heavy 50 pound M1917 tripod.

I think the US could have done a bullet trap rifle grenade to get RPG-2 range with 4" penetration

 

[BlackDragon98]

Better clothing for differing climates/better cold weather gear! Newsflash. The uniform needed in Germany or Belgium in the dead of winter is not the same uniform needed in Burma or New Guinea (or the Philippines for that matter). Boots that don't rot in the mud and humidity of the SW Pacific would be nice, as would boots that don't encourage trench foot. Note: Snow is white, consider having a few hundred thousand cheap cotton covers to throw over the much improved cold weather kit. better WOOL socks!

Alaska campaign in a nutshell.
The sheer number of cold weather casualties...
Insanity.

Better individual rations, ones with enough calories to support an infantryman, 2,800 calories is plenty sitting on your butt in DC, its about half of what you need in high activity combat or long route marches. 10-in-1 are great, as long as the contents are only meant for five men, but G.I.s are not going to be getting that hot chow on the regular. Need double the calories and at least some sort of variety. Richest country one earth, breadbasket of the world, how about some decent chow?

Meal Rejected by Ethopians?

 

[AdA]

The US army will have to deal with a cultural disfunction with their newly acquired junior officers who had no cultural model akin to European armies. My father came to Morocco and Algeria as a liaison officer from the 8th Army as a professional soldier and 4 years of war and was shocked by the attitude of US junior officers who took no interest or care for their soldiers (obviously with innumerable exceptions). Essentially they ignored them and left their day to day care to the NCOs with little supervision or involvement and this was exacerbated by the inexperience of many of the said NCOs.

He came from a paternal military culture whereby the junior officer's first care was for his men. Not unlike horses the men had to be seen to before the officers needs were met. He was expected to be familiar (not in the social sense) with his men and to be approachable but distant. His NCOs task was to present him with soldiers in good order and properly trained and equipped and the officer was supposed to supervise and take responsibility for this taking place. Then the officer's task was to make best use of the men the King had provided for him.

A tradition of an alleged equal and classless society left the US junior officers lax in their duty to their men. Again with innumerable exceptions. They also lacked a 'family' culture within their units treating soldiers as interchangeable numbers and not as (junior) individual family members.

This was not a criticism of these junior officers but that they knew no better. The better ones did a proper job on their own initiative. They were good men but ill prepared. What would have a positive effect upon the use of arms by American Infantry early in the mid war would be a better prepared system of officer training to cope with the huge numbers that would be inevitable upon entering a world war and to give a model of their duties to follow day to day. One might see it as the common dichotomy between leadership and management. These are often confused and I suspect that this was the root of my father's observations. I might point out that my mother was there working for the American army so not a one sided view.

Cultural differences.
The U.S. Army operated like a big company. Officers were management level, NCO run the floor and the soldiers were the work force. In the peace time small army with professional NCO the system worked. Without proper NCO the system doesn't work. A U.S. Officer getting too close to his men would be seen as trespassing on the NCO job and would only add to the problem.
The British Army had an older, rural attitude. The Officers acted has if they were the landowners, with NCO to take care of the practical aspects, but with a paternalistic attitude towards the men.
Since cultural changes take generations, the solution for both armies would be better trained NCOs.

 

[CalBear]

Alaska campaign in a nutshell.
The sheer number of cold weather casualties...
Insanity.


Meal Rejected by Ethopians?

Funny thing is that even the early MRE, would have been a huge improvement over the K-Ration, at least calorie wise. Best thing the military could have done was to toss in a 16 ounce can of peanut butter in every other ration pack. Would have almost doubled the calorie content with a huge increase in protein and fat content.

 

[CalBear]

Cultural differences.
The U.S. Army operated like a big company. Officers were management level, NCO run the floor and the soldiers were the work force. In the peace time small army with professional NCO the system worked. Without proper NCO the system doesn't work. A U.S. Officer getting too close to his men would be seen as trespassing on the NCO job and would only add to the problem.
The British Army had an older, rural attitude. The Officers acted has if they were the landowners, with NCO to take care of the practical aspects, but with a paternalistic attitude towards the men.
Since cultural changes take generations, the solution for both armies would be better trained NCOs.

American units are still, at the lower levels, very much NCO dominated. Junior officers are seen, quite correctly, as apprentices in their craft. You will rarely hear an American, regardless of branch, at or below E-4 talk much about their platoon officer, it is the E-6 and 7 (Staff, First/Master/Gunnery Sergeant and 1st Class PO and CPO) who are the daily managers.

Still pretty much like a business.

 

[marathag]

Funny thing is that even the early MRE, would have been a huge improvement over the K-Ration, at least calorie wise. Best thing the military could have done was to toss in a 16 ounce can of peanut butter in every other ration pack. Would have almost doubled the calorie content with a huge increase in protein and fat content.

or every breakfast unit

Vietnam era MCI can of PB
Or mix it up, chocolate spread

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Funny thing is that even the early MRE, would have been a huge improvement over the K-Ration, at least calorie wise. Best thing the military could have done was to toss in a 16 ounce can of peanut butter in every other ration pack. Would have almost doubled the calorie content with a huge increase in protein and fat content.

To be fair K rations really weren't meant to issued to anyone who wasn't either assault infantry or Paratroopers where their lighter weight would in theory be beneficial and even then they really weren't meant to be used for more than a handful of days in a row

 

[CalBear]

To be fair K rations really weren't meant to issued to anyone who wasn't either assault infantry or Paratroopers where their lighter weight would in theory be beneficial and even then they really weren't meant to be used for more than a handful of days in a row

True, but that was also rather idiotic on the face of it. Even five or six days on what amounted to have the calories needed (burning 5,500-6,000, getting 2,700-2,800) followed by a day or two at full rations (which was usually not the case, even if 10-in-1 was available every few days) was going to have serious impact on health and combat effectiveness.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

True, but that was also rather idiotic on the face of it. Even five or six days on what amounted to have the calories needed (burning 5,500-6,000, getting 2,700-2,800) followed by a day or two at full rations (which was usually not the case, even if 10-in-1 was available every few days) was going to have serious impact on health and combat effectiveness.

I think the theory was that said units would be pulled back behind the lines and be giving at least B-Rations for a week or so. Mind you by 1944 they should have known better via combat experience and either improved the K-rations or instead issued C-rations. I do agree that the theory wasn't the best one to begin with but it did have a rational behind it.

 

[Maximinus Thrax II]

If the Americans had managed to design a effective quick change barrel system for the M1919 A6 then they would've had a pretty decent general purpose machine gun although the M1919 is a bit heavy for a GMPG role. The lack of QCB made the weapon heavier because the Americans tried to compensate the lack of QCB system with a heavier profile barrel.

 

[jsb]

Adopt the T-16 Universal Carrier (US manufactured variant) early on and equip each infantry company with four of them.

Would a proper APC not be better and still affordable by US say one based off the M3 once the M4 comes into production?

 

[jsb]

but how do you get them to do it well before the war, and how do they test any of it?

Not well before the war and hits political issues, but what about some more overt "Canadians" or Eagle squadron types observing the war and sold/LL equipment in use 39-41?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Need a Squad or platoon level LMG

Any gun you like so long as its a ZB 26 clone

Other than that the US were pretty good in WW2

Maybe adopt the M1 Carbine as the M2 Select fire version (with 30 round magazines) and tanker M1 Garand from the get go

 

[yulzari]

Cultural differences.
The U.S. Army operated like a big company. Officers were management level, NCO run the floor and the soldiers were the work force. In the peace time small army with professional NCO the system worked. Without proper NCO the system doesn't work. A U.S. Officer getting too close to his men would be seen as trespassing on the NCO job and would only add to the problem.
The British Army had an older, rural attitude. The Officers acted has if they were the landowners, with NCO to take care of the practical aspects, but with a paternalistic attitude towards the men.
Since cultural changes take generations, the solution for both armies would be better trained NCOs.

Quite so but if you get better trained officers then they will supervise the NCOs and ensure that they are trained. Leave it to the existing NCOs and you just get a repetition of practices like the old Soviet army where the NCOs were abused as recruits and abused in turn as was the tradition. Officers are not management level NCOs. They are leaders, or should be. The experienced NCO will advise a young officer who will be wise to listen to and heed the advice, but he makes the decisions and leads for himself.

However, this has strayed to general military culture which is applicable to any army, not just the American army.

 

[Maximinus Thrax II]

I think a major improvement would have also been designing the .30 Carbine as a proper intermediate cartridge. In OTL the .30 Carbine was developed somewhat backwards compared to the German development of the 7.92mm Kurz or the Soviet M43 intermediate cartridges. Instead of shortening a fullsize rifle cartridge to have lighter recoil and the ability to have more compact weapons the Americans rather beefed up a pistol cartridge to have bit longer range. As a result the .30 Carbine had considerably less stopping power compared to proper intermediate cartridges like the 7.92mm Kurz or the Soviet M43. The Americans could have easily developed a proper intermediate cartridge similarly to the Germans by shortening the 30.06 case and adding a lighter spitzer bullet. A more effective intermediate cartridge would have also been useful in conflicts after WWII. For example US supplied many of it's Cold War allies with the M1 Carbine. Some of the US allied soldiers were of smaller stature compared to typical US servicemen and could have used something lighter and handier than the M1 Garand using decent intermediate cartridge especially in jungle fighting.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I think a major improvement would have also been designing the .30 Carbine as a proper intermediate cartridge. In OTL the .30 Carbine was developed somewhat backwards compared to the German development of the 7.92mm Kurz or the Soviet M43 intermediate cartridges. Instead of shortening a fullsize rifle cartridge to have lighter recoil and the ability to have more compact weapons the Americans rather beefed up a pistol cartridge to have bit longer range. As a result the .30 Carbine had considerably less stopping power compared to proper intermediate cartridges like the 7.92mm Kurz or the Soviet M43. The Americans could have easily developed a proper intermediate cartridge similarly to the Germans by shortening the 30.06 case and adding a lighter spitzer bullet. A more effective intermediate cartridge would have also been useful in conflicts after WWII. For example US supplied many of it's Cold War allies with the M1 Carbine. Some of the US allied soldiers were of smaller stature compared to typical US servicemen and could have used something lighter and handier than the M1 Garand using decent intermediate cartridge especially in jungle fighting.

Nah, just make a true .20 caliber cartridge using the OTL .30 case.

Calhoon cartridges - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Raferty]

HAS the worst ration system.

That Jalapeno Cheese vs Peanut Butter MRE debate is pointless. The Australians get this disgusting toxic paste sludge called Vegemite and it's better than both of them. One of the guys in my unit had been to prison where they used this punishment meal of mashed up vegetables and protein substitute called "the Loaf" and said it was similar to most MREs in terms of taste.

The seeming indifference to the conditions the GIs were in, is disturbing, compared Commonwealth troops, where real efforts was taken to make sure that hot meals were to the front, and trench foot prevention.
C and K Rations were meant to be temporary, days, not weeks at a time.

For a few days, they were good for what they were, excepting the low calorie count above.

Eating them cold, for weeks at end?
That's a punishment. Meals shouldn't be punishment

having more variety for each of the three meals would have been easy to do, but wasn't

Part of this was the massive overspecialization issue in WW2. American Field Artillery Observation units, Tank Destroyer Batallions, Anti Air specialists, etc had elaborate kits and top line equipment. Problem was, all of these units were superfluous and often not needed (perhaps other than the first). The infantry was essentially the bottom of the barrel, and they had to create scratch infantry formations out of the specialized units late in the war, and of course the specialized treatment ended and they were sent into battle without cold weather outfits or digestible rations. They essentially got things backwards in the ETO