W.I The US Army chose the colt monitor and the Model 1923 for service?

Like the title says the the US Army chooses the colt monitors rather than the M1918A2 and the model 1923 Thompson chambered for .45 Remington Thompson, the latter was never advertised as replacement for the BAR just a more powerful Tommy gun.

Just how would the colt monitor and model 1923 have faired in combat?
What kind of variants would there be of both weapons?
How would the higher velocity R.T .45 be received by the US military and would still be in use today?
How much more reliable would the colt monitor be and just what kind of beneficial improvements would it had by Korea and Vietnam?
 
The Monitor looks like it has the same limits that made the BAR unsuitable for the US Army intended role for it. It does look suitable as the fire team weapon the US Marines deployed in the 1940s & 50s. But, to get to that one has to get past the role of the BAR in the Marine rifle platoon or company from the 1920s thru 1942. Despite the remarks about the balance & other superior characteristics it is still to heavy as a individual rifleman weapon.
 
Like the title says the the US Army chooses the colt monitors rather than the M1918A2 and the model 1923 Thompson chambered for .45 Remington Thompson, the latter was never advertised as replacement for the BAR just a more powerful Tommy gun.

Just how would the colt monitor and model 1923 have faired in combat?
What kind of variants would there be of both weapons?
How would the higher velocity R.T .45 be received by the US military and would still be in use today?
How much more reliable would the colt monitor be and just what kind of beneficial improvements would it had by Korea and Vietnam?

Monitor still needs a quick change barrel to be really useful, but now it's closer to what it really should have been, an fully controllable automatic rifle, not a light machine gun.

Thompson is still too heavy and expensive. 45 R-T was a bit more powerful that the later 45 Magnum, and about the same as the M1 .30 Carbine and it's about the limit for blowback operation, so the M3 Greasegun may not exist in this TL.

You might see the M1 Carbine in .45 R-T, as in the '70s there was a kit to convert Carbines to 45 Magnum
 
Monitor still needs a quick change barrel to be really useful, but now it's closer to what it really should have been, an fully controllable automatic rifle, not a light machine gun.

Thompson is still too heavy and expensive. 45 R-T was a bit more powerful that the later 45 Magnum, and about the same as the M1 .30 Carbine and it's about the limit for blowback operation, so the M3 Greasegun may not exist in this TL.

You might see the M1 Carbine in .45 R-T, as in the '70s there was a kit to convert Carbines to 45 Magnum

I didn't know about the .45 magnum, so in world war 2 there would m1 carbines chambered in .45 R-T just how effective would that have been?

The colt monitor would have been very reliable in comparison to the A2 BAR. It would very good at being mobile in the Pacific and Europe in comparison to the heavy M1919s
 
I didn't know about the .45 magnum, so in world war 2 there would m1 carbines chambered in .45 R-T just how effective would that have been?

Energy wise, it's still either a real powerful handgun round or weak rifle cartridge, just below Intermediate Cartridges. .45 pistol bullets aren't great for long range performance. 30 Carbine drops 6' at 350 yards, 45 Magnum does 6' drop at 250 yards. Better than 45 ACP at 190 yards

M1 Carbine in either 45 or 30 would be similar effectiveness. Similar energy, after all. Easier to shoot accurately than a pistol, the whole reason for the carbine
 
If by "in use today" you mean adopted by any official organization: probably not. As noted above, this is too big for practical purpose (handgun, SMG)

By the larger shooting community and hobbyists, yes. It could have been made popular by a movie for instance, like the .44 Magnum after Dirty Harry.
 
If by "in use today" you mean adopted by any official organization: probably not. As noted above, this is too big for practical purpose (handgun, SMG)

By the larger shooting community and hobbyists, yes. It could have been made popular by a movie for instance, like the .44 Magnum after Dirty Harry.

That would happen, carbine versions included.
 
1. The Monitor (R80) was (like the BAR in general) neither fish now fowl; it was an attempt to develop a BAR that could be used in the assault role. Like most such rifles, firing 1900s era cartridges, it failed. It was completely unsuited for the SAW/LMG/HBAR role (no bipod, shorter/lighter barrel) et cetera, but was still too heavy and hard recoiling to shoulder fire on automatic. There's good reasons for only ~125 being made.

2. The M1923 never got beyond prototype because there was no role for it; it lacked the range of a rifle (or even a carbine) due to it's short, round-nosed bullet and the ammunition was both heavy and non-standard.

3. If you want the US to adopt a decent LMG then there was the R75 BAR, with heavier (though still fixed) barrel and pistol grip. Or copy the features of the FN, Swedish and Polish variants, with quick-change barrels, large capacity magazines or belt feed.

4. Wrt the Thompson; for a better SMG chamber it for .38 Super or 9x25mm (the latter existed as a BSA prototype) and develop better box magazines. For an assault carbine. go ahead with the .351 version that was mocked-up in 1919; far less recoil and ammunition weight, with better performance.

5. As for an assault rifle, start with the .30 Remington (basically a rimless, .30-30 with pointed bullet) or the aforementioned .351 WSL, the French used the Model 1917 selective fire carbine in that calibre on a small scale.
 

So for a better BAR the R75 should have been adopted and the Thompson should have been chambered in another caliber other than .45?

It could have worked especially with the R75 but the decisions from higher chains at the time tended to be really confusing namely putting two automatic firing rates for the BAR that had only 20 rounds.

A better carbine cum assault rifle would have been useful but the US military just wouldn't invest in one.
 
So for a better BAR the R75 should have been adopted
Maybe, however the R75's advantages over the later M1918 versions was marginal. Really the BAR should have been phased out and a proper LMG developed, possibly using BAR components.
and the Thompson should have been chambered in another caliber other than .45?
It depends on what you're looking for. The .45ACP round was useful against people but not against even 1920s cars (hence the preference for .38 Super pistols and carbines) in the law enforcement role. In the US I can't see .45 being dropped entirely.

If you're looking for a weapon that's effective beyond 50m and lighter than a BAR, then a Thompson in .351 is a valid option.

It could have worked especially with the R75 but the decisions from higher chains at the time tended to be really confusing namely putting two automatic firing rates for the BAR that had only 20 rounds.
Oh yes. If you're going to keep the basic M1918 then gradual improvements, such as a QCB and larger magazine (both entirely possible modifications) would have helped.

Or stick with the Lewis.

A better carbine cum assault rifle would have been useful but the US military just wouldn't invest in one.
Absolutely. It's need more shooting wars in the 1930-40 period. Maybe the Marines get into one and decide they want something better?[/QUOTE]
 

The M1918 is neither here nor there and the A2 was a mixed bag. But the BAR was invaluable in Korea it really helped that soldier could and can sneak up on Chinese machine gun teams and be provided instant firepower when the M1919 took too long to set up.

But you are right the BAR should have been converted to take a belt feed a 1940s M60 eusqe GPMG of sorts.

Strange to say there was an MG42 fielded by the USMC the M1919 Stinger the US army could have made it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WWII/comments/8jaadm/if_we_got_the_m1919_in_multiplayer_this_is_the/

The marines would have gone for an AR if they were aware the of concept it at the time.
 

Deleted member 1487

4. Wrt the Thompson; for a better SMG chamber it for .38 Super or 9x25mm (the latter existed as a BSA prototype) and develop better box magazines. For an assault carbine. go ahead with the .351 version that was mocked-up in 1919; far less recoil and ammunition weight, with better performance.
Or license the Danuvia 39m ;)

The M1918 is neither here nor there and the A2 was a mixed bag. But the BAR was invaluable in Korea it really helped that soldier could and can sneak up on Chinese machine gun teams and be provided instant firepower when the M1919 took too long to set up.

But you are right the BAR should have been converted to take a belt feed a 1940s M60 eusqe GPMG of sorts.

Strange to say there was an MG42 fielded by the USMC the M1919 Stinger the US army could have made it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WWII/comments/8jaadm/if_we_got_the_m1919_in_multiplayer_this_is_the/

The marines would have gone for an AR if they were aware the of concept it at the time.
Given the proven combat ranges in Korea a StG44 would be been FAR more ideal for that.

Also the BAR was converted to belt feed by the Swedes and apparently an American inventor in the mid-1930s, but the way to go for full power cartridge SAW type weapon was the Johnson LMG. It was lighter and handier, plus easier to change out the magazines and convertable to belt feeding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I was thinking more of the 1919-30 period. After that there are numerous sub-machine guns that are better than the Thompson on various criteria; cost, weight, reliability, ease of maintenance, range et cetera.

Given the proven combat ranges in Korea a StG44 would be been FAR more ideal for that.
Or any true assault rifle, there's no technical reason the US couldn't have fielded one in WW2.

Also the BAR was converted to belt feed by the Swedes and apparently an American inventor in the mid-1930s, but the way to go for full power cartridge SAW type weapon was the Johnson LMG. It was lighter and handier, plus easier to change out the magazines and convertable to belt feeding.
True the Johnson is superior. But as a LMG I'd rate the Lewis (especially if it's cleaned up, i.e. the shroud removed) superior to the BAR in the earlier period.
The Poles used a feedway to convert their BARs to drum feed.
 

Deleted member 1487

True the Johnson is superior. But as a LMG I'd rate the Lewis (especially if it's cleaned up, i.e. the shroud removed) superior to the BAR in the earlier period.
The Poles used a feedway to convert their BARs to drum feed.
There was the WW1 Lewis Assault Phase Rifle, only 12 pounds:
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2192
6ff85d3e0f651f8c46cf82ecee89d428.jpg
 

Deleted member 1487

I was thinking more of a decent LMG; heavy barrel (or QCB), high capacity magazine, decent bipod. .30-06 is a bit much for automatic fire on the move. Though Lewis's rifle would have been a useful semi-automatic with automatic fire for emergencies.
In a perfect world sure, but given the mindset of the officials at the time around the .30-06 it seems the Lewis assault rifle (it's name and role in WW1 not modern designation necessarily) was the best option compared to any BAR. The belt fed BAR with quick change barrel would likely been easily over 25 pounds.
 
In a perfect world sure, but given the mindset of the officials at the time around the .30-06 it seems the Lewis assault rifle (it's name and role in WW1 not modern designation necessarily) was the best option compared to any BAR. The belt fed BAR with quick change barrel would likely been easily over 25 pounds.

While the Lewis gun was the first very portable machine gun and well ahead of it's rivals it's creator ran afoul of a rivalry, which is ironic when you consider that because of the rivalry the Lewis ended up with British and Belgian armies. :D

I am surprised that Johnson was also responsible for the M16/AR-15 the uses a similar bolt as the LMG.
 

Deleted member 1487

While the Lewis gun was the first very portable machine gun and well ahead of it's rivals it's creator ran afoul of a rivalry, which is ironic when you consider that because of the rivalry the Lewis ended up with British and Belgian armies. :D

I am surprised that Johnson was also responsible for the M16/AR-15 the uses a similar bolt as the LMG.
Johnson was a hugely innovative designer....who never got nearly the recognition he deserved.

BTW the Lewis gun provided the Germans the basis of the design for the FG-42....which then inspired the M-60...
 
Johnson was a hugely innovative designer....who never got nearly the recognition he deserved.

BTW the Lewis gun provided the Germans the basis of the design for the FG-42....which then inspired the M-60...

Things do come a full the Lewis was responsible for the MG34/42 and finally the M60.
 
Top