TL-191: Yankee Joe - Uniforms, Weapons, and Vehicles of the U.S. Armed Forces

I got a request for modern Union Barrel by @ThirdyLovesAH so I made what I'm calling an SB (standard Barrel) the B-55 General Morrel.
View attachment 590030
Developed from the B-50 General Morrel series of standard barrels the B-55A entered service in 1980 and has gone thru several upgrades while continuing to serve as the Union's standard barrel in both the Union army and Marine Corps.
The B-55 is due for replacement in 2020 by the B-58.
Thanks @cortz#9!!!! I appreciated it.
 
I got a request for modern Union Barrel by @ThirdyLovesAH so I made what I'm calling an SB (standard Barrel) the B-55 General Morrel.
View attachment 590030
Developed from the B-50 General Morrel series of standard barrels the B-55A entered service in 1980 and has gone thru several upgrades while continuing to serve as the Union's standard barrel in both the Union army and Marine Corps.
The B-55 is due for replacement in 2020 by the B-58.
Perhaps we should do more post-war equipment?
 
M1955 Battle Rifle

Specifications

Type: Battle Rifle
Country of Origin: United States of America
Introduction: 1955
Action: Short-stroke gas piston, tilting breechblock.
Cartridge: 30-06
Feed System: 20 or 30 round box magazines
Rate of Fire: 650-700 rounds per minute
Effective Range: 600 meters

The M1955 Battle Rifle, also known as the Right Arm of the Americas, was the standard infantry rifle for the United States Armed Forces from it's adoption in the mid-1950s until their ultimate replacement by the M1985 Assault Carbine in 1986. The origins of this gun would go back to the Second Great War, when Dieudonne Saive, was working on a .30 carbine select-fire variation for his M1940 Battle Rifle, but got nowhere. In 1947, a US Military whitepaper would be published that another war with Japan might be possible in a period of 10 years, in which it would state that the US Armed Forces should invest in a new battle rifle which was to chambered for a new intermediate round, must have a detachable box magazine, and to have select-fire capability. The Department of Defense would make the decision to pursue development of a new service. In the period from 1948 to 1952, the US Government would sponsor a program for the development for the new rifle, in which a new cartridge, the 30-50 (7.62x45mm), would be developed. Several rifles from different companies and induvial would be submitted, including Springfield's T41 rifle, which was designed by Dieudonne Saive, which would ultimately be the winner of the trial in late 1952. The T41 would be briefly be adopted as the M1953 Battle Carbine. However, the ordinance board would reject the 30-50 round, and would make the requirement that the new rifle must be in a more powerful cartridge. The engineers at Springfield Arsenal would design the T41 for the venerable 30-06 round, which the new variant was now designated the T44, which would undergo trials before being finally accepted into military service in 1955. The rifle would prove to be popular in US Military and serve with great distinction throughout much of the Frozen War until it's retirement in the infantry rifle role in the mid 1980s by the M1985 Assault Rifle, though it still remains in use as a designated marksman's rifle in the US Army and as a line throwing rifle for the US Navy. The rifle would also serve in a host of different nations such as Alaska, Guatemala, Chile, Venezuela, New Zealand and was even licensed produced by countries like Brazil, Australia, and Mexico.
 
Last edited:
So I just started relistening to this series on audiobook cause I'm feeling nostalgic it now being two decades since I started reading them. And I caught the USS Dakota is normally referred to the otl USS North Dakota. However the book says that the Dakota has ten "the two guns in the upper forward turret fired then the Three guns of the lower turret. " in the battle for the sandwich islands that means that the 191 USS Dakota is a 12 inch version of the otl Nevada class.

USS_North_Dakota_(BB-29)_as_build.svg.png

Otl USS North Dakota

USS_Nevada_Bow_damage_after_Pearl_harbor_attack.jpg

Forward gus of the OTL USS Nevada.
 
M1955 Battle Rifle

Specifications

Type: Battle Rifle
Country of Origin: United States of America
Introduction: 1955
Action: Short-stroke gas piston, tilting breechblock.
Cartridge: 30-53 (7.62x52mm) Winchester
Feed System: 20 or 30 round box magazines
Rate of Fire: 650-700 rounds per minute
Effective Range: 600 meters

The M1955 Battle Rifle, also known as the Right Arm of the Americas, was the standard infantry rifle for the United States Armed Forces from it's adoption in the mid-1950s until their ultimate replacement by the M1985 Assault Carbine in 1986. The origins of this gun would go back to the Second Great War, when Dieudonne Saive, was working on a .30 carbine select-fire variation for his M1940 Battle Rifle, but got nowhere. In 1947, a US Military whitepaper would be published that another war with Japan might be possible in a period of 10 years, in which it would state that the US Armed Forces should invest in a new battle rifle which was to chambered for a new intermediate round, must have a detachable box magazine, and to have select-fire capability. The Department of Defense would make the decision to pursue development of a new service. In the period from 1948 to 1952, the US Government would sponsor a program for the development for the new rifle, in which a new cartridge, the 30-50 (7.62x45mm), would be developed. Several rifles from different companies and induvial would be submitted, including Springfield's T41 rifle, which was designed by Dieudonne Saive, which would ultimately be the winner of the trial in late 1952. The T41 would be briefly be adopted as the M1953 Battle Carbine. However, the ordinance board would reject the 30-50 round, and would make the requirement that the new rifle must be in a more powerful cartridge. The engineers at Springfield Arsenal would design the T41 for the newly developed 30-53 round (which was a slightly shortened version of 30-06,) which the new variant was now designated the T44, which would undergo trials before being finally accepted into military service in 1955. The rifle would prove to be popular in US Military and serve with great distinction throughout much of the Frozen War until it's retirement in the infantry rifle role in the mid 1980s by the M1985 Assault Rifle, though it still remains in use as a designated marksman's rifle in the US Army and as a line throwing rifle for the US Navy. The rifle would also serve in a host of different nations such as Alaska, Guatemala, Chile, Venezuela, New Zealand and was even licensed produced by countries like Brazil, Australia, and Mexico.
An American Ak-47 love it. Mind if I steel this for use in my tl when I get to WWII time period.
 
So a random question occurred to me. Namely in the context of the early FGW or pre war US military planning which makes more sense a "Strike North" plan prioritizing the conquest/neutralization of Canada with a holding pattern against the CSA until the Canadians have been subdued or a "Strike south" strategy prioritizing the conquest of the CSA while a holding pattern is pursued against the Canadians?

It seems likely considered the US's significantly greater strength then either the CSA or Confederacy that the US Army's pre war planning would be aggressive and focused on offense.
 
So a random question occurred to me. Namely in the context of the early FGW or pre war US military planning which makes more sense a "Strike North" plan prioritizing the conquest/neutralization of Canada with a holding pattern against the CSA until the Canadians have been subdued or a "Strike south" strategy prioritizing the conquest of the CSA while a holding pattern is pursued against the Canadians?

It seems likely considered the US's significantly greater strength then either the CSA or Confederacy that the US Army's pre war planning would be aggressive and focused on offense.
They would have plans for both, because a Strike North strategy would make no sense from November to March

That said the logical one front approach is a strike on Canada to seize the South Bank of the St. Lawrence, cut the transcontinental railroad on the Great Plains and isolate Nova Scotia. At this point depending on how the Great Lakes naval battles go, either invade Kentucky, or launch an amphibious assault to knock out Canada by a coup de main. Nuetralizing Canada is fairly easy, seize the area South of the St. Lawrence, cut off Nova Scotia and cut the transcontinental railroad and the US has defensible river lines or long barren stretches with poor logistics to protect itself, but the River lines work both ways and Canada has a solid position that it can make taking extremely expensive, hence unless the US can guarantee naval supremacy on one of the Great Lakes, well Erie, Huron or Ontario, doing that first step them hitting the CSA makes more sense
 
They would have plans for both, because a Strike North strategy would make no sense from November to March

That said the logical one front approach is a strike on Canada to seize the South Bank of the St. Lawrence, cut the transcontinental railroad on the Great Plains and isolate Nova Scotia. At this point depending on how the Great Lakes naval battles go, either invade Kentucky, or launch an amphibious assault to knock out Canada by a coup de main. Nuetralizing Canada is fairly easy, seize the area South of the St. Lawrence, cut off Nova Scotia and cut the transcontinental railroad and the US has defensible river lines or long barren stretches with poor logistics to protect itself, but the River lines work both ways and Canada has a solid position that it can make taking extremely expensive, hence unless the US can guarantee naval supremacy on one of the Great Lakes, well Erie, Huron or Ontario, doing that first step them hitting the CSA makes more sense
The idea of Great Lakes fleet's really intrigues me. We'll see the US post ACW start investing in a fleet with this being initially countered by a RN flotilla and later a RCN force.

I' m thinking "Great Lakes Battleships" that are a lot like the coastal defense ships used by nations like Sweden, Norway, Siam, and the like.
 
Yeah that is how they are reference in the books "Some European Navies would call them Coastal Defense Battleships with guns a cruiser on the ocean would carry" Jonathan Moss in Anerican Front . However dubs and mines shut them down early in the war. Apparently neither side thought to build some Destroyers to go with them
 
Yeah that is how they are reference in the books "Some European Navies would call them Coastal Defense Battleships with guns a cruiser on the ocean would carry" Jonathan Moss in Anerican Front . However dubs and mines shut them down early in the war. Apparently neither side thought to build some Destroyers to go with them
That or nobody though them worth mentioning in the snippets we saw, presumably they or torpedo boats exist but are not mentioned by characters, none of which are in the Great Lakes navy or naval higher ups. Also the idea of subs in the Great Lakes is somewhat silly, Lake Erie, probably the most important of the lakes from a strategic POV, is on average 19 meters deep, with the Western basin literally being too shallow for even a coastal sub to fully submerge in, with the middle third of the Lake still leaving very little average water under the keel. Huron has a couple spots where subs would have issues running submereged, Superior and Ontario are fine but Michigan is surrounded by the US and the straits of Mackinac are basically impossible for a sub to traverse due to unpredictable water flow
 
That or nobody though them worth mentioning in the snippets we saw, presumably they or torpedo boats exist but are not mentioned by characters, none of which are in the Great Lakes navy or naval higher ups. Also the idea of subs in the Great Lakes is somewhat silly, Lake Erie, probably the most important of the lakes from a strategic POV, is on average 19 meters deep, with the Western basin literally being too shallow for even a coastal sub to fully submerge in, with the middle third of the Lake still leaving very little average water under the keel. Huron has a couple spots where subs would have issues running submereged, Superior and Ontario are fine but Michigan is surrounded by the US and the straits of Mackinac are basically impossible for a sub to traverse due to unpredictable water flow
While true subs (or even WW1 Submersibles) might not make sense in the Lakes Semi Submersible Torpedo Boats would probably make sense with WW1 tech and in the extremely tight confines of the Great lakes. Basically Torpedo Boats with extremely extremely low free board making them really hard to detect with MK 1 Eyeball (Which is pretty much the main sensor in WW1). Great for raiding enemy lake shipping or sneak raids on enemy harbors and warships at night.


 
View attachment 592958
Since its Russian design I could see Britain/Canada fielding something like that on the Great Lakes and to a airplane it would look like a surfaced submarine
It's funny I just linked to that exact image.

I mean the concept of Semi Submersibles isn't new for the US by WW1. In OTL the original USS Monitor was essentially a semi submersible since her freeboard was so low her decks were awash in even moderate seas. There were also a couple of semi submersible torpedo boats in the ACW.
 
Top