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

Deleted member 1487

I know but you did say it did provide the basis for the German MG34/42 the Lewis gun is partly responsible for it and I meant no offense.
I said FG-42.
BTW the Lewis gun provided the Germans the basis of the design for the FG-42....which then inspired the M-60...
No offense taken, just trying to be clear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FG_42
The proposed system of operation was modeled on that used in World War I Lewis light machine gun, with a gas-operated turning bolt action geared to a spiral (clock-type) recoil spring.[13] The type "A" was never produced beyond model form, but the basic design layout was retained for further development.[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun
The M60 machine gun began development in the late 1940s as a program for a new, lighter 7.62 mm machine gun. It was partly derived from German guns of World War II (most notably the FG 42 and the MG 42)[5][6
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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?
All the Monitor is really is a shortened BAR without the needed barrel shroud.

The Thompson 45 apparently extracted rounds at high pressure and high velocity, reportedly with enough force to drive the casings into wooden planks near the shooter. That would make you REALLY popular with your battle buddy.
 
The Thompson 45 apparently extracted rounds at high pressure and high velocity, reportedly with enough force to drive the casings into wooden planks near the shooter. That would make you REALLY popular with your battle buddy.

Like the Blish sliding wedge did nothing to actually slow the bolt travel on recoil.

Looked cool in the Patent drawings, though
 
In effect it was a blow back SMG, but it was actually on the edge of mechanically failing all the time. Also the Thompson is a horrible SMG and stupidly expensive to make, making it in something more powerful than .45ACP is just going to magnify all the worst aspects of the design.
 
Hey now be fair, Lewis was long dead when the M-60 was developed; he can't be blamed for it.


I made a mistake I meant FG-42 and then the M60, I not blaming him for it but the Belgian rattlesnake did provide the basis for portable magazine later belt fed machine guns
 
Well the US did not choose the BAR until 1938. You have to change US infantry doctrine, the rifleman with his personal weapon can do anything. The BAR as originally intended is a failure in the role of providing the rifleman with more firepower, it was never intended as an LMG in US service.


That's a) hard given Pershing's insistence on it and b) means you actually get an LMG, and probably not the M1 for financial reasons. That LMG could be an adaptation of the BAR per Belgian or Swedish versions but its going to be in the standard rifle calibre which financially means the .30

Given the gestation of the M1 itself you are probably looking at very long trials with the cavalry and infantry disagreeing about everything, a large dose of NIH and no orders placed until the late 30s, which then go to troop trials and have to be reworked.
 
Well the US did not choose the BAR until 1938. You have to change US infantry doctrine, the rifleman with his personal weapon can do anything. The BAR as originally intended is a failure in the role of providing the rifleman with more firepower, it was never intended as an LMG in US service.


That's a) hard given Pershing's insistence on it and b) means you actually get an LMG, and probably not the M1 for financial reasons. That LMG could be an adaptation of the BAR per Belgian or Swedish versions but its going to be in the standard rifle calibre which financially means the .30

Given the gestation of the M1 itself you are probably looking at very long trials with the cavalry and infantry disagreeing about everything, a large dose of NIH and no orders placed until the late 30s, which then go to troop trials and have to be reworked.
The Marines and Navy already had a LMG, the Lewis. The US Army in Europe had the Chauchat machine rifle, 35,000 of them. A little better planning could have equipped them with a better automatic rifle.
 
The Marines and Navy already had a LMG, the Lewis. The US Army in Europe had the Chauchat machine rifle, 35,000 of them. A little better planning could have equipped them with a better automatic rifle.

Wasn't the chauchat very bad with its exposed magazine?
 
The marines are different and would have gone for an LMG given the money, but they get sweat left after navy has its new toys.

The chauchat at best is an inferior automatic rifle not an LMG post war they go for an entirely different concept, and squad organisation based on the mle 24.

There is actually a transition going on here. Pre ww1 all armies were fumbling around with automatic rifles to supplement infantry firepower. But these are conceptually rifles not crew served weapons. Come WW1 the British in particular buy up every lewis that exists for that purpose and kinda accidentally also get a workable LMG and by 1917 infantry tactics are based on the firepower of the LMG.

The French never quite do because the chauchat is not as good, it’s just available. Both the French and the us postwar go for an organisation mixing rifle, rifle grenade and an automatic weapon for a reason.

Sure the US could have had an LMG but they positively chose not to because they believed it was an active hinderance to the rifleman who can carry any position with his personal weapons.
 
Top