US Army better LMG, 1939-45

[tomo pauk]

What kind of a light machine gun should've the US Army been buying (and US industry making) in the specified time period? Lighten the M1919? Belt-fed BAR? Bren equivalent? The LMG should be also using the existing belts or switch to different type? Compatibility with existing tripods?
Belt-fed or magazine-fed 'flavor'?
The calibre is still the .30-06 - US Army does not adopt the .276 Pedersen, as per OTL.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

There was a Bren-type machine gun in .30-06 offered to the US Army IOTL IIRC, by the Mexican inventor Rafael Mendoza who had originally built it for the Mexican Army in 7mm Mauser and it seemed to have done well enough with them. AFAIK it simply came too late and there was no point in making a new machine to replace all their BARs in 44 or 45 but if it was offered much earlier like on the cusp of war (the Mendoza machine gun dates to 1934) maybe it could've had a chance.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

How about a US adaption of the Czech progenitor of teh Bren gun? In .30.06 rather than the original 7.92mm (sic)

Ninja'd but " Great Minds think alike".

 

[tomo pauk]

How about an earlier Johnson LMG, with proper magazine and recoil buffer? It was very light, too.

 

[Rickshaw]

The Bren would have been perfectly adequate. It featured everything the BAR lacked. It had a removable barrel, a top mounted magazine, a bipod and it could be mounted on a tripod as well. It was deadly accurate in .303in. Changing it to 30-06 would decrease that. It was light weight - 25 lb/11.3kg loaded. There were numerous other LMGs, such as MG34, the zb26/zb30.

 

[French Frog]

It's surprising if the US didn't even test the Bren

 

[Paul_Sussex]

Was the US military still fairly close with the French? Might they have considered the FM24/29?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

There was a Bren-type machine gun in .30-06 offered to the US Army IOTL IIRC, by the Mexican inventor Rafael Mendoza who had originally built it for the Mexican Army in 7mm Mauser and it seemed to have done well enough with them. AFAIK it simply came too late and there was no point in making a new machine to replace all their BARs in 44 or 45 but if it was offered much earlier like on the cusp of war (the Mendoza machine gun dates to 1934) maybe it could've had a chance.

How about a repeat of the P13 to M17 scenario? 1940 during the post Dunkirk panic the UK places orders with US companies for the Bren and then when the US is dragged into the war the US takes over the orders converting them to 30-06?

 

[CaptainCalvert]

The Bren would have been perfectly adequate. It featured everything the BAR lacked. It had a removable barrel, a top mounted magazine, a bipod and it could be mounted on a tripod as well. It was deadly accurate in .303in. Changing it to 30-06 would decrease that. It was light weight - 25 lb/11.3kg loaded. There were numerous other LMGs, such as MG34, the zb26/zb30.

Obtaining a licence to manufacture the MG34 might have been a challenge! But then there were some US companies with interests in manufacturing plants in the Nazi era, so not impossible to have some insider knowledge.
The obvious ones to adopt or adapt would be Bren, the French M24/29, Mendoza and Johnson. Parochial interests would likely favour the Johnson.
But then again, developing a true LMG suggests a more favourable WW1 experience with the Chauchat (French-made levels of reliability) or Lewis and something delaying the BAR (maybe it experiences OTL Chauchat-levels of reliability due to factory issues). That could then put the Lewis and/or Chauchat in the place the BAR took OTL, though whether that means "It's good enough, we'll keep using it" or "It's not bad, let's improve it" is hard to say. I'd hope the latter as a 2nd generation Chauchat could be interesting.

 

[Catsmate]

The FN version of the BAR? An improved Lewis?

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

The FN version of the BAR? An improved Lewis?

If I'm not mistaken the Lewis Gun during the interwar years was used by the US Navy and Marine Corps

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

The US could get the licensing rights to the Mendoza:

 

[Catsmate]

If I'm not mistaken the Lewis Gun during the interwar years was used by the US Navy and Marine Corps

Yes and in WW1 the Marines used it until they came under Army control.

 

[Blue cat]

What kind of a light machine gun should've the US Army been buying (and US industry making) in the specified time period? Lighten the M1919? Belt-fed BAR? Bren equivalent? The LMG should be also using the existing belts or switch to different type? Compatibility with existing tripods?
Belt-fed or magazine-fed 'flavor'?
The calibre is still the .30-06 - US Army does not adopt the .276 Pedersen, as per OTL.

I'd be inclined to change the question and ask what changes (if any ?) in doctrine should the US Army have adopted post WW1, then ask what LMG would have been best suited for the US Army.

That being said, the Czech predecessor to the Bren, the Mendoza, the Johnson (probably with some changes), the M24/29, various German firearms (I am inclined to agree getting a license to make the MG34 might have been a challenge but I believe some earlier firearms were commercially available pre WW2) would all seem to have a lot to offer. I have probably overlooked some possibilities. It is unclear to me if the M1919 could have been lightened any further than it was in the A6 model but perhaps that could have been adopted earlier ?

Maybe if there had been a project to acquire an actual US LMG (or perhaps GPMG) shortly after WW1 then John Browning might have come up with something in response (maybe a variant of the BAR altered to belt feeding with a quick change barrel ? )

 

[Driftless]

The US could get the licensing rights to the Mendoza:

That's one that might have made the better BAR

 

[CaptainCalvert]

In a world without a BAR I could easily imaging Browning looking at the OTL LMGs at the end of the war and developing something useful.
There would be a lot of financial inertia and resistance because the armed forces already had something, which would be partially addressed by an American homegrown design and designer.

 

[Driftless]

How long did the US Army hold to the walking fire concept? By its basic nature, wouldn't that be exceptionally consumptive of ammo? Was the walking fire conept a part of Pershing's theory of open field offensive warfare - or is that not so?

 

[Driftless]

A bit tongue-in-cheek.... Don't let the 1930s Springfield Arsenal near the design and prototype steps, regardless of what the weapon will be.

 

[Blue cat]

What kind of a light machine gun should've the US Army been buying (and US industry making) in the specified time period? Lighten the M1919? Belt-fed BAR? Bren equivalent? The LMG should be also using the existing belts or switch to different type? Compatibility with existing tripods?
Belt-fed or magazine-fed 'flavor'?
The calibre is still the .30-06 - US Army does not adopt the .276 Pedersen, as per OTL.

Although this may not quite fit the time period you specified, perhaps in an alternate time line is the US is able to produce a copy of the MG42 in 30 06 that works well enough to be accepted for service and manages to produce enough to be able to put them in service prior to WW2 ending. At the same time they also more or less copy the German approach of basing Squad firepower on a GPMG and also keep M1 Garands in service and emphaise individual marksmanship skills with both rifles and GPMG’s.

Maybe some US defensive actions in late WW2 and Korea turn out a bit differently with US rifle squads equipped with MG42’s in 30 06 and M1 Garands.

The BAR presumably remains in service as well and is issued on an as needed basis.

(I’m not saying the US should have done this but they did try to copy the MG 42.)

Perhaps experiences with having to keep a squad equipped with both an MG42 and semi auto rifles supplied with enough 30 06 ammo prompts the US to move towards significantly smaller and lighter cartridges sooner ?

 

[Driftless]

I think to get a better US LMG in that interwar period, you need to get US Army doctrine move off the idea that the individual US infantryman is an innate marksman and bayonet expert, overpowering all in their path. The uber Sgt York, if you will. (Ok, that's hyperbole, but that underlying concept played a role in having the M1 Garand as the squad weapon of preference). The US experience as late arrivals on the WW1 battlefield and Pershing (and his disciples) believed in that model of soldier. They were largely using 1914 tactics into late 1917 and early 1918. Pershing's Army and Corps level commanders succeeded him at the top command levels after the war and again, largely held to that mind set. The often maligned Big Mac (for all of his flaws) was NOT a Pershing guy, but he had to work within that chain of thought to some extent.

Have the US Army leadership learn different lessons from WW1 - take your pick on whether its following British, French (who did most of the US Infantry's training), or the Germans small unit tactics. Maybe the biggest battlefield opportunity missed was having US troops work under the Australian Gen Monash for much longer.

All of that is preamble to getting the US brain trust working on a different path for how Army and Marine small unit tactics are shaped in the interwar years. That would give you a reason to change the equipment selected.