WI: 7.62x51mm never becomes NATO standard

Deleted member 1487

I think @AdA is trying to say that a “light machine gun” chambered in .280 British could have filled the role that the M60 and M249 played. As I said in the OP though, it is still likely that a medium machine gun in .30-06 or 7.92 Mauser still remains in service, although it would probably see limited use - squads would be happy enough with the FN FAL and the LMG for their suppressive fire needs, and vehicles and stationary emplacements would want a more powerful machine gun like the M2 Browning.
Per the British model they developed the Taden gun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taden_gun
The TADEN used the action and gas system of the Bren but would fire from 250-round non-disintegrating metal-link belts rather than box magazines. The light machinegun model used a buttstock and trigger group like the Bren and the medium machine gun model used spade grips and a butterfly trigger like the Vickers.

The TADEN would replace the Bren gun as the light machine gun and the Vickers machine gun as the medium machine gun. The EM-2 would replace the Lee–Enfield rifle and 9 mm submachine guns.
em-2_10_taden.jpg


images


https://armourersbench.com/tag/taden/
 

Ak-84

Banned
Early adoption .... say 1950 ...... would have been better for Canadian soldiers fighting in Korea.
OTL They were equipped with bolt-action, WW2-vintage rifles, but really, really, really needed more automatic weapons to stop Chinese human-wave tactics.
The Canadians incompetence* would hinder any improvement in equipment.

*In case you don’t get it. The Chinese did not use “human waves” in Korea. And if they had, Canadian machine guns and arty would have had a field day.
 
Buddy please, we all know the .276 Pedersen T20E2 Garand would have trounced the FAL. :p
t20e2.jpg


Also Swedish 8mm? Why not just adopt the very well developed 7.92mm Mauser round? Or keep the existing .30-06 US round, except using the M1 boat tailed bullet?
Using a Garand, which is a full rifle, without a full bore round is like opting for a smaller engine in a Caddilac and claiming it's a compact car. Regarding the 7,92 and the 30.06 as HMG rounds they both had to be rifle friendly. The 8mm was tried in a rifle but proved to be too powerful for rifle use. That bit of extra power is what makes the 8x63 attractive as a HMG round.
But if NATO was going for a new round and new rifles, they could design a new HMG round, at which point an even more powerful round could be introduced (as long as it's not so powerful that requires a weapon in the. 50 class
 
At the end of WW2 the British briefly considered going over to 8mm Mauser as the standard small arms round.
 
Regarding the FN MAG / GPMG what would eventually be the M240 in the US (once they had comprehensively exhausted all other possibilities ;) ) - If NATO went .280 then I expect that the MAG would be also chambered for it

The Bullet is not that far off from what became 7.62 NATO and would be good enough for the GPMG role IMO

A better approach for my mind is the adoption of the lighter but higher velocity .270 Enfield round for the FAL which was a lighter bullet than the later .280 and .280/30 and was intended for the 0-300 meter battlefield (you know - ranges where actual combat takes place) and then a Machine gun/sniper round likely in 30-06 (.30 cal) or the new 7.62x51 NATO

This is very much what NATO forces would evolve too anyway


.270 Enfield

Bullet mass/type
Velocity Energy
6.48 g (100 gr) 840 m/s (2,800 ft/s) 2,286 J (1,686 ft⋅lbf)


.280/30 Enfield

Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy
139 gr (9 g) Ball 2,545 ft/s (776 m/s) 1,999 ft⋅lbf (2,710 J)


7.62 NATO

Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy
147 gr (10 g) M80 FMJ 2,733 ft/s (833 m/s) 2,437 ft⋅lbf (3,304 J)


30-06 (M2 - 1938)

Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy
152 grains (9.8 g) 2,805 ft/s (855 m/s), 2,656 ft⋅lbf (3,601 J)


For comparison M193 5.56x45 from 1963

Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy
3.56 g (55 gr) XM193 FMJBT 993 m/s (3,260 ft/s) 1,755 J (1,294 ft⋅lbf)
 
Why wouldn't the GMPG standard catch on?
Because it would lack long range and hitting power to do HMG work. The GPMG is partly the result of the GP round and partly the reduced need for sustained fire in WW2 ops. With a lighter round, LMG under 8kg would provide firepower to the infantry, but couldn't do HMG work. Without the need to be moved around in LMG mode, the HMG could be heavy enough to use a more powerful round.
 

Deleted member 1487

Using a Garand, which is a full rifle, without a full bore round is like opting for a smaller engine in a Caddilac and claiming it's a compact car.
The Garand was tested in .276 Pedersen and was liked and preferred to the .30-06 version, but the demand to use existing stockpiles of ammo necessitated the use of .30-06.
The benefit of using a much less powerful round in the Garand, is that when it is converted to full auto with a magazine, which was doable for the Garand given things like the BM-59, that extra weight means it is considerably more controllable if fired in bursts versus the full powered battle round.

Regarding the 7,92 and the 30.06 as HMG rounds they both had to be rifle friendly. The 8mm was tried in a rifle but proved to be too powerful for rifle use. That bit of extra power is what makes the 8x63 attractive as a HMG round.
But if NATO was going for a new round and new rifles, they could design a new HMG round, at which point an even more powerful round could be introduced (as long as it's not so powerful that requires a weapon in the. 50 class
The US already was using .50 cal as an HMG, so there is no point or way that you're getting them to downgrade to a smaller caliber. My point was though if they were going to go with a lighter round, the existing 7.62x63 with an M1 heavy boattailed round was a lot cheaper to implement than adopting a new caliber and would have excellent long range performance. If they wanted an 'intermediate' round then the French 9x66mm MAS round already existed specifically as a mid-way power point between 7.62 (or 7.5mm in their case) and the 12.7mm round.
http://www.municion.org/French/9x66Mas.htm
http://atf40.forumculture.net/t1089-mitrailleuse-mac37-de-9-mm
 
The Garand was tested in .276 Pedersen and was liked and preferred to the .30-06 version, but the demand to use existing stockpiles of ammo necessitated the use of .30-06.
The benefit of using a much less powerful round in the Garand, is that when it is converted to full auto with a magazine, which was doable for the Garand given things like the BM-59, that extra weight means it is considerably more controllable if fired in bursts versus the full powered battle round.


The US already was using .50 cal as an HMG, so there is no point or way that you're getting them to downgrade to a smaller caliber. My point was though if they were going to go with a lighter round, the existing 7.62x63 with an M1 heavy boattailed round was a lot cheaper to implement than adopting a new caliber and would have excellent long range performance. If they wanted an 'intermediate' round then the French 9x66mm MAS round already existed specifically as a mid-way power point between 7.62 (or 7.5mm in their case) and the 12.7mm round.
http://www.municion.org/French/9x66Mas.htm
http://atf40.forumculture.net/t1089-mitrailleuse-mac37-de-9-mm
The US used. 30.06 in their standard HMG of WW2, which was the M1917. They used the .50 primarily as a vehicle mounted AA HMG. Of course once the troops got it they started using it against all sorts of targets, the .50 being so good for general use as it still use. But what they didn't use it for was for the sustained fire defensive role, for which the. 1917 was ideal, and which is the primary reason HMG live for.
 

Deleted member 1487

The US used. 30.06 in their standard HMG of WW2, which was the M1917. They used the .50 primarily as a vehicle mounted AA HMG. Of course once the troops got it they started using it against all sorts of targets, the .50 being so good for general use as it still use. But what they didn't use it for was for the sustained fire defensive role, for which the. 1917 was ideal, and which is the primary reason HMG live for.
HMG is used loosely in the sense of it being a watercooled, largely fixed machine gun capable of lots of sustained firing.
The .50 Cal was used for foot infantry units too during WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning
Besides vehicle-mounted weapons, the heavy weapons companies in a World War II U.S. Army infantry battalion or regiment were each issued one M2 Browning with tripod (ground) mount.[45] Mounted on a heavily sandbagged tripod, the M2HB proved very useful in either a defensive role or to interdict or block road intersections from use by German infantry and motorized forces.[46] Hearing the sound of an M2 could often cause enemy infantry to take cover.[47] There are numerous instances of the M2 Browning being used against enemy personnel, particularly infantry assaults[48] or for interdiction or elimination of enemy artillery observers or snipers at distances too great for ordinary infantry weapons.[49][50][51]
 
HMG is used loosely in the sense of it being a watercooled, largely fixed machine gun capable of lots of sustained firing.
The .50 Cal was used for foot infantry units too during WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning
HMG are not all water cooled. The. 50 is noot ideal for the sustained fire role because:
The water cooled version is too heavy for dismounted use;
The ammo is too bulky
Doesn't really have a quick barrel change in its WW2 version and the barrel heats up really quickly in long bursts.
This meant that while the GIS loved the .50, they still carried the M1917 that was more adapted for the sustained fire role.
Had the Garand been adopted in 276 it would have been a better weapon, and 276 would have been likely adopted by NATO. But that's a 1930s POD in a 1950s thread. Much like the dead and forgotten 9x66 after WW2.
With a 30s POD, you get a lighter Garand in. 276, a scaled down BAR with all the goodies of the Swedish one (Bipod and QCB) in 276 and you'd still need a HMG in 30.06 for the sustained fire mission.
Since this would kill the .30 carbine and probably the SMGS, you don't even have more complicated logistics, the one caliber argument having been voided by the use of catbines
 

Deleted member 1487

HMG are not all water cooled. The. 50 is noot ideal for the sustained fire role because:
The water cooled version is too heavy for dismounted use;
The ammo is too bulky
Doesn't really have a quick barrel change in its WW2 version and the barrel heats up really quickly in long bursts.
This meant that while the GIS loved the .50, they still carried the M1917 that was more adapted for the sustained fire role.
Had the Garand been adopted in 276 it would have been a better weapon, and 276 would have been likely adopted by NATO. But that's a 1930s POD in a 1950s thread. Much like the dead and forgotten 9x66 after WW2.
With a 30s POD, you get a lighter Garand in. 276, a scaled down BAR with all the goodies of the Swedish one (Bipod and QCB) in 276 and you'd still need a HMG in 30.06 for the sustained fire mission.
Since this would kill the .30 carbine and probably the SMGS, you don't even have more complicated logistics, the one caliber argument having been voided by the use of catbines
Hence the 9mm HMG ;)
But it depends about sustained fire, the US certainly used it in fixed positions for that because they had plenty of supply backing them up and watercooled versions were perfectly fine defending fixed positions despite their weight. 'Heavy' 7.62 MGs were fine against exposed infantry, but as the Germans found out with their 7.92 HMGs there were serious issues against any vehicle armor, attacking fixed fortified positions, and some issues with range in terms of direct fire. For long range barrage fire yes the lighter caliber weapons are more preferable for that, but how often do MGs engage in that since WW2?
If there is a switch to .276 pre-WW2 then it would have been fine for LMG/MMG roles, while the sustained fire HMG versions probably could have been fine with the 7mm round anyway for most roles barring some of the longer range indirect barrage fire, with .50 cal MGs handling the long range and anti-material/fortification work. Post-WW2 the .276 Pedersen is still very viable and could well have been just kept as is with more variety in bullet size due to the longer case, which use more energetic powder mixes than existed pre-WW2 (which is what the 7.62 NATO round did when it was able to maintain much of the performance of the .30-06 in a shorter case).

If the .276 Pedersen was adopted, it could have been fitted into an adapted BAR, which thanks to the Belgian and Swedish innovations would have allowed it to take on an increasingly GPMG role. Given that the FN MAG is in large part derived from the BAR mechanism (with MG42 innovations), the US could well have done that themselves. A water cooled MG in .276 could have really done everything the M1917 did and be lighter though with some sacrifice in long range indirect fire ability...though keeping the M1917 during WW2 to burn off all that stockpiled .30-06 would be helpful.
 
Hence the 9mm HMG ;)
But it depends about sustained fire, the US certainly used it in fixed positions for that because they had plenty of supply backing them up and watercooled versions were perfectly fine defending fixed positions despite their weight. 'Heavy' 7.62 MGs were fine against exposed infantry, but as the Germans found out with their 7.92 HMGs there were serious issues against any vehicle armor, attacking fixed fortified positions, and some issues with range in terms of direct fire. For long range barrage fire yes the lighter caliber weapons are more preferable for that, but how often do MGs engage in that since WW2?
If there is a switch to .276 pre-WW2 then it would have been fine for LMG/MMG roles, while the sustained fire HMG versions probably could have been fine with the 7mm round anyway for most roles barring some of the longer range indirect barrage fire, with .50 cal MGs handling the long range and anti-material/fortification work. Post-WW2 the .276 Pedersen is still very viable and could well have been just kept as is with more variety in bullet size due to the longer case, which use more energetic powder mixes than existed pre-WW2 (which is what the 7.62 NATO round did when it was able to maintain much of the performance of the .30-06 in a shorter case).

If the .276 Pedersen was adopted, it could have been fitted into an adapted BAR, which thanks to the Belgian and Swedish innovations would have allowed it to take on an increasingly GPMG role. Given that the FN MAG is in large part derived from the BAR mechanism (with MG42 innovations), the US could well have done that themselves. A water cooled MG in .276 could have really done everything the M1917 did and be lighter though with some sacrifice in long range indirect fire ability...though keeping the M1917 during WW2 to burn off all that stockpiled .30-06 would be helpful.

Increase the number and effectivess of Medium and light Mortars within a given Battalion / Company (which happend anyway) and the slightly loss in indirect fire capability would not be an issue.
 
A better approach for my mind is the adoption of the lighter but higher velocity .270 Enfield round
I was thinking along the same lines.

The big problem is getting the American military to accept the smaller caliber to begin with. If they go for it, I think that whichever cartridge the Americans push will likely be the one adopted by NATO just as IOTL.

Supposing some divergence leads the Americans to consider calibers less than .30, the .270 seems the best 'all-rounder' in terms of performance. 6.5mm (.264) family rounds tend to have the best down-range performance and in flight ballistics, while 7mm (.276/.280/.284 families) tend to have superior terminal ballistics. Right in the middle of both in terms of performance is the 6.8mm (.270) family. Standardizing to a .270 cartridge of proper design can allow a very accurate, controllable, and high-impacting infantry round that also allows snipers and sharpshooter to "build up" their own loads for long-range shooting. In this circumstance, I could see the Americans developing a shortened version of the .276 Pedersen (7mm) to compete against the .270 British (6.8mm), or shortening and necking it down to produce a 6.8mm with an overall length of 65mm or less--slightly longer than the .270 British's 62mm--so that it can accommodate a heavier bullet and a higher load.

If a 6.5mm-7mm round is adopted I think it would stick around as a universal round for all light infantry purposes, including LMG and sniping. I don't think there will be any real need for anything between it and the .50 BMG and certainly little need for anything smaller (except sidearms of course). Whether the US adopts the FAL, I couldn't say. Ruger as proven in recent years that the basic Garand action, when properly developed, is highly adaptable and dependable in mid-sized rounds in their Mini-14 family (.223, 6.8 SPC, and 7.62x39mm). The problems with the M14, therefore, are not insurmountable and then the US Military can field weapons with a proud "All American" design.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Increase the number and effectivess of Medium and light Mortars within a given Battalion / Company (which happend anyway) and the slightly loss in indirect fire capability would not be an issue.
Agreed and I think the actual response to the shift away from using long range indirect machine gun barrage fire.
 
I was thinking along the same lines.

The big problem is getting the American military to accept the smaller caliber to begin with. If they go for it, I think that whichever cartridge the Americans push will likely be the one adopted by NATO just as IOTL.

Supposing some divergence leads the Americans to consider calibers less than .30, the .270 seems the best 'all-rounder' in terms of performance. 6.5mm (.264) family rounds tend to have the best down-range performance and in flight ballistics, while 7mm (.276/.280/.284 families) tend to have superior terminal ballistics. Right in the middle of both in terms of performance is the 6.8mm (.270) family. Standardizing to a .270 cartridge of proper design can allow a very accurate, controllable, and high-impacting infantry round that also allows snipers and sharpshooter to "build up" their own loads for long-range shooting. In this circumstance, I could see the Americans developing a shortened version of the .276 Pedersen (7mm) to compete against the .270 British (6.8mm), or shortening and necking it down to produce a 6.8mm with an overall length of 65mm or less--slightly longer than the .270 British's 62mm--so that it can accommodate a heavier bullet and a higher load.

If a 6.5mm-7mm round is adopted I think it would stick around as a universal round for all light infantry purposes, including LMG and sniping. I don't think there will be any real need for anything between it and the .50 BMG and certainly little need for anything smaller (expect sidearms of course). Whether the US adopts the FAL, I couldn't say. Ruger as proven in recent years that the basic Garand action, when properly developed, is highly adaptable and dependable in mid-sized rounds in their Mini-14 family (.223, 6.8 SPC, and 7.62x39mm). The problems with the M14, therefore, are not insurmountable and then the US Military can field weapons with a proud "All American" design.

Perhaps the Germans make greater use of the 7.98 Kurtz - perhaps an earlier STG44 introudced in much larger numbers and generally picked up by allied soldiers as well as equally large numbers of Volkssturmgwehr using the same calibre and magazines in the dying year of the war in ETO.

Perhaps a very simple 'Sten Volkssturmgwehr' is made in the many 100,000s rather than just the 10,000 odd OTL and this leaves a serious impact in the minds of the various allied forces including the US Army.
 
Agreed and I think the actual response to the shift away from using long range indirect machine gun barrage fire.

And of course I forgot to add man portable reliable radios capable of calling in serious Arty and air and the organsiation capable of making that work!
 

Deleted member 1487

And of course I forgot to add man portable reliable radios capable of calling in serious Arty and air and the organsiation capable of making that work!
For the longer range stuff sure, but the point of the proliferation of light mortars/40mm grenade launchers/rifle grenades/rocket launchers was to get a much firepower as far forward without the need for relying on radios (could be jammed) and specialized FOOs (could be killed) to bring fire down on the enemy. Toward the end of WW2 the Germans were even pushing 81mm (short) mortars down to the company level for that reason, which actually worked pretty well.
http://www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/kz-8-cm-gr-w-42-short-mortar.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hence the 9mm HMG ;)
But it depends about sustained fire, the US certainly used it in fixed positions for that because they had plenty of supply backing them up and watercooled versions were perfectly fine defending fixed positions despite their weight. 'Heavy' 7.62 MGs were fine against exposed infantry, but as the Germans found out with their 7.92 HMGs there were serious issues against any vehicle armor, attacking fixed fortified positions, and some issues with range in terms of direct fire. For long range barrage fire yes the lighter caliber weapons are more preferable for that, but how often do MGs engage in that since WW2?
If there is a switch to .276 pre-WW2 then it would have been fine for LMG/MMG roles, while the sustained fire HMG versions probably could have been fine with the 7mm round anyway for most roles barring some of the longer range indirect barrage fire, with .50 cal MGs handling the long range and anti-material/fortification work. Post-WW2 the .276 Pedersen is still very viable and could well have been just kept as is with more variety in bullet size due to the longer case, which use more energetic powder mixes than existed pre-WW2 (which is what the 7.62 NATO round did when it was able to maintain much of the performance of the .30-06 in a shorter case).

If the .276 Pedersen was adopted, it could have been fitted into an adapted BAR, which thanks to the Belgian and Swedish innovations would have allowed it to take on an increasingly GPMG role. Given that the FN MAG is in large part derived from the BAR mechanism (with MG42 innovations), the US could well have done that themselves. A water cooled MG in .276 could have really done everything the M1917 did and be lighter though with some sacrifice in long range indirect fire ability...though keeping the M1917 during WW2 to burn off all that stockpiled .30-06 would be helpful.
At what range does the .276 fails to penetrate an helmet?
One use for MG is to saturate area targets with direct fire, which requires decent penetration at ranges from 500 to 1000m
If the .276 can penetrate an helmet at 1000m and be accurate enough allow snipers to make head shots at that distance you've got a capable round for all light infantry needs.
The 30.06 would probably still live for a while on AFVs
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
At what range does the .276 fails to penetrate an helmet?
One use for MG is to saturate area targets with direct fire, which requires decent penetration at ranges from 500 to 1000m
If the .276 can penetrate an helmet at 1000m and be accurate enough allow snipers to make head shots at that distance you've got a capable round for all light infantry needs.
The 30.06 would probably still live for a while on AFVs
WWII & Korean War era helmets were only good for stopping shrapnel and ricochets. They couldn't even stop pistol rounds or buckshot.
 
Top