US Army adopts Medoza LMG in the 1930s

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendoza_RM2
What if the US Army, looking for something more modern than the BAR, was approached by Rafael Mendoza in 1938 during rearmament to offer his LMG design in .30-06? Historically Mendoza did travel to the US to market his weapon during WW2 and got a contract, but it was cancelled in 1945 when the war ended. IOTL in 1938 was when he went into private industry, already with a patent on the weapon in the US, but focused on supplying Mexico rather than looking for foreign contracts. His RM2, at 6.3kg, was lighter than the BAR, easier to manufacture, cheaper, reliable, and had the option for a larger capacity magazine. Some apparently called it everything the BAR should have been. Plus it could double as a platoon fire support weapon, which would have been superior to the stripped down M1919 the US used historically, and probably adapted pretty easily to a belt feed mechanism if deemed necessary.

Edit: so how would it impact US army units to have a much more mobile squad automatic weapon capable of sustained fire, plus have a weapon capable of being a platoon support weapon 1/3rd as heavy as the historical platoon MG?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SwampTiger

Banned
Nice find. If started earlier, the production process may have been ready by 1942. It could have replaced BARs in some units, providing a better LMG/AR for squads, Sort of a lightweight Bren.
 

Deleted member 1487

Nice find. If started earlier, the production process may have been ready by 1942. It could have replaced BARs in some units, providing a better LMG/AR for squads, Sort of a lightweight Bren.
Indeed, which is why I found it so interesting. Unfortunately they wouldn't use the 7mm Mauser round, but what can you do? Given the ability to swap barrels for the sustained fire version or to fire at a limited rate for the lightweight SAW version and make the fixed barrel last, it would be pretty superior to the BAR and M1919 Platoon MG, while being cheaper, lighter, and able to be made in the same factory. Any ideas how it might impact US Army tactical abilities/conduct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wtw

SwampTiger

Banned
If you can adapt the gun for belt feed, you have an American GPMG. Magazine feed to the platoon autorifle role, belt feed and QD barrel for an LMG/MMG. The American forces could have utilzed a multiple fire group system like the Marines tried. A German style platoon with more automatic weapons.
 
Higher Axis casualties, fewer American casualties, faster American advances.
The falaise pocket might actually be closed in 1944 given the Germans a bigger military disaster than Stalingrad leaving the door to the Rhine totally open. American troops would be in Germany before the first snowfall.
 

Deleted member 1487

Higher Axis casualties, fewer American casualties, faster American advances.
The falaise pocket might actually be closed in 1944 given the Germans a bigger military disaster than Stalingrad leaving the door to the Rhine totally open. American troops would be in Germany before the first snowfall.
War over by 1945?
Why do you think it would have such a strategic impact? The Bren didn't help the Brits advance any faster and as it was despite vastly heavier firepower and air dominance they weren't able to break through to Falaise any more quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jsb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendoza_RM2
What if the US Army, looking for something more modern than the BAR, was approached by Rafael Mendoza in 1938 during rearmament to offer his LMG design in .30-06? Historically Mendoza did travel to the US to market his weapon during WW2 and got a contract, but it was cancelled in 1945 when the war ended. IOTL in 1938 was when he went into private industry, already with a patent on the weapon in the US, but focused on supplying Mexico rather than looking for foreign contracts. His RM2, at 6.3kg, was lighter than the BAR, easier to manufacture, cheaper, reliable, and had the option for a larger capacity magazine. Some apparently called it everything the BAR should have been. Plus it could double as a platoon fire support weapon, which would have been superior to the stripped down M1919 the US used historically, and probably adapted pretty easily to a belt feed mechanism if deemed necessary.

Edit: so how would it impact US army units to have a much more mobile squad automatic weapon capable of sustained fire, plus have a weapon capable of being a platoon support weapon 1/3rd as heavy as the historical platoon MG?
If I recall there was a version in 30-06, made a little later
 

Deleted member 1487

If I recall there was a version in 30-06, made a little later
There was one during WW2, but it didn't get into mass production before the war ended. The official RM-2 was the later produced .30-06 version, which was the light and simplified one, which I'm not 100% sure was the one offered in WW2, but might have been, just produced for the Mexican army.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wtw
War over by 1945?
Why do you think it would have such a strategic impact? The Bren didn't help the Brits advance any faster and as it was despite vastly heavier firepower and air dominance they weren't able to break through to Falaise any more quickly.
It was incredibly close in OTL the Germans only had one road open. Any butterflies no matter how small could have closed it.
 
So the Mendoza LMG

Looks amazing - however I am alway cynical when a very light weapon is proposed as a historical replacement.

Generally Light = more fragile

How relaible was it? It appears that only the Mexicans used it.

Was it ever used in combat?

I wasn't able to find anything on its performance in service.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
US Army adopted the gun in 1942?, but cancelled it before production in .30-06 commenced in 1945. The Mexicans adopted the gun in 7x57 in 1938. Mendoza should have marketed the gun north when he was testing with Mexico. He also should have partnered with an American company, Remington, Winchester or Savage maybe.
 

Deleted member 1487

So the Mendoza LMG

Looks amazing - however I am alway cynical when a very light weapon is proposed as a historical replacement.

Generally Light = more fragile

How relaible was it? It appears that only the Mexicans used it.

Was it ever used in combat?

I wasn't able to find anything on its performance in service.
Not used in combat that I can find. The lightening did remove certain features, like the QC barrel. It was heavier than the Johnson LMG, which it was similar to and the Johnson wasn't unreliable AFAIK.
Otherwise it seems like it was pretty decent, no worse than the BAR:
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/mendoza-rm-2-lmg-photos/

I haven't seen reviews of it online, but apparently it was well liked enough that the US army ordered some IOTL during WW2.
 
It was incredibly close in OTL the Germans only had one road open. Any butterflies no matter how small could have closed it.

Read the accounts of the German soldiers who made it out the corridor. Several kilometers were under continual artillery fire, summlemented by aircraft bombing, mortars, and direct fires from tanks and tank destroyers along the flanks of the route. a few million more MG rounds wont make the difference.
 
... it would be pretty superior to the BAR and M1919 Platoon MG, while being cheaper, lighter, and able to be made in the same factory. Any ideas how it might impact US Army tactical abilities/conduct?

If you can adapt the gun for belt feed, you have an American GPMG. Magazine feed to the platoon autorifle role, belt feed and QD barrel for an LMG/MMG. The American forces could have utilzed a multiple fire group system like the Marines tried. A German style platoon with more automatic weapons.

I wondered about this myself. Technically the US Squad was in two teams, a assault element of rifle men and a fire support element of the BAR and a couple of riflemen/ammo bearers. The squad leader & a scout element were usually melded into one or the other. If the Army buys off on a belt fed squad weapon then maybe another ammo bearer is added? Otherwise no change with a magazine fed weapon.

US Army doctrine in the era was driven top down. Particularly after AGF took over all preparations of ground combat and combat support units.

...The American forces could have utilzed a multiple fire group system like the Marines tried. A German style platoon with more automatic weapons.

The US Marines doctrinal development was more bottom up. The field commanders had a lot more flexible allowance in organizing their rifle companies. They had more recent combat veterans working out doctrine from the Banana wars organizing and reorganizing rifle platoons and companies, & those were replaced by combat veterans from the Pacific invalided or rotated back to the US. Unlike the Army the new USMC units of 1943> had their cadres heavily salted with recent combat veterans. The trend 1942-45 was to ask for and give out more automatic weapons to the rifle battalion each year. In 1942 the company commander on Guadalcanal had sixteen BAR in his company, & one or two MMG of the battalion weapons company supporting his position. by mid 1944 he had 27 BAR, six MMG belonging to his company, and support from 2-4 MG from the battalion weapons company. The US Army stuck to nine BAR & two MMG in the rifle company for the war. Like the Marines they pushed down every bit of fire power at hand from supporting units, but in the balance the Army stuck with its prewar assumptions concerning the combination of SLR, automatic weapons, and light mortars in the rifle company.

I think the institutional bias at AGF has to be waived away before we see a significant departure from the 1941-42 Army rifle company model.
 
Top