WI Earlier American Assault Rifles

After WWII, the Soviet Union turned to assault rifles much quicker than the Americans, ending with the adoption of the AK-47 in 1949.

WI the Americans managed to implement assault rifles as fast as the USSR, or at least as soon after WWII as possible?

I'd assume this would butterfly away the M14 and would probably result in at least significant changes to the M16, but what else?
 
I would not expect significant changes in the 1st world, but some of them are funny. 1st, Korea could cost AR-toting Americans less in butcher's bill (not much less. mind you, several hundreds extra troops surviving Chinese human wave attacks). 2nd, initial phase of Viet Nam could be more successfull (it does not change the outcome, though, as long as Americans weren't willing to occupy North and Vietnamese were willing to fight, all ARs in the world would not change it). 3rd, Algerian war could be longer or (ideally) have a different outcome (French keeping it), as AR-wielding French patrols (assuming that Americans shared the technology) could control more of Algerian hinterland with less resources.

More significant changes are possible in the 3rd world (assuming that Americans spread their ARs as far and wide as AK-47 and it is as rugged and almost as reliable as AK-47). I fully expect several insurgencies where leftist guerillas with AK-47 smashed pro-Western governments with Garands and SMLEs to turn another way. South Africa/Angola/Rodesia game could end up very different. Sandinista's victory is questionnable. Portuguese could have a chance in their African adventures and could end up keeping part of their empire. Even Israel could somewhat benefit from increased fire reach and mobility of it's troops (Uzi they used in 1967 weigh as much as AK-47 but loses big time in effectivenesss and FN/FAL weigh 1.5 times as much, which is a lot for a grunt pounding Sinai peninsula).
 
This one is actually very, very easy to find a POD for.

The United States, as we know, fielded the M1 Garand as its infantry rifle in WWII. Like most forces, they found the gun unwieldy for paratrooper operations and the like. Unlike most, they also realized that the infantry rifle round was grossly overpowered and looked for a lighter and handier weapon. They eventually put together a weapon which was (as originally envisioned) selective fire and shooting an intermediate round. They removed the ability to shoot automatic from the original design, but reintroduced it in 1944. Troops were very split on whether they liked the Garand or the new gun more.

What did they do wrong on the M1A/M2 carbine? The mistake was small but telling: when the Germans and Soviets made their assault rifles, they cut down a rifle bullet. The American gun juiced up a pistol round. That was the error.

So, someone designs a shortened .30-06 much like the Germans made a shorter version of their rifle cartridge and they use that in the carbine. Instant US assault rifle... in 1942. And in large quantities.
 
Also, another note: we wouldn't call the weapon an assault rifle, either. That was a bit of German propaganda meat. Instead, we'd refer to them as 'machine carbines' or 'automatic carbines', something like that.
 
The Enfield is a later development, started in 1948, right? The US weapon was in development *before WWII* and was issued in its OTL form to combat units in 1942. All we're talking about is different ammo, rifle round derived instead of pistol round derived.

So, no, not at the same time. This would be going into the field in Guadalcanal and Operation Torch. It probably would greatly speed up development of a similar British gun, though.
 
I think 1948 was when it was given its official designation, rather than when planning and design work started.
 
Hannibal mentioned after WW2 so I assumed 1948 as a POD and the US accepting the .280 round instead of as Trebuchet said juicing up a pistol round.
 
The simplest after-WWII solution is for them to see some StG-44's, smack their foreheads, and rechamber the M1A. Combining a newly developed British intermediate round with their selective-fire 30-round carbine makes for a quick postwar assault rifle. This would also entrench the .280 as the standard NATO round.
 
What about instead of giving the M1 Garand an 8 round internal clip sorta thing the US government pushes for John Garand to redesign the rifle to accomodate a box magazine. Though initially only holding an extra 2 rounds (10 to equal the Lee Enfield) eventually a 20-30 round clip is adopted similiar to the BAR.

This of course makes the already deadly Garand, even more deadly. Though it can be converted to an automatic weapon it is unwieldly leading the US gov't to push for a better Assaut Rifle for Paratroop ops etc leading to a 1940's version of the M-16.
 
This is what they did after WWII that led to the M-14. It just takes forever it seems to do anything during "peacetime".

WI the US got intermediate cartridges before WWII?

A POD for this thread is hard to pick because there are so many to choice from.

The 1860 Henry Rifle in the Civil War become the new issue weapon instead of the Springfield Model 1861 or its follow-ons.


John Pedersen developed the Pedersen device as a weapon instead of an optional attachment for the M1903 Springfield rifle.

General Thompson choose to develop a new cartridge for his "one-man, hand-held machine gun" instead of falling back on the .45 ACP and got it to Europe before the end of the Great War.

Douglas MacArthur didn't forbid research into the semi-automatic Pedersen rifle and its .276 (7 mm) rifle cartridge.

The best book about these missed chances IMHO is "The Great Rifle Controversy: Search for the Ultimate Infantry Weapon from World War II Through Vietnam and Beyond by Edward Clinton Ezell"

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Rifle-Controversy-Ultimate-Infantry/dp/0811707091/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221458817&sr=1-6
 

burmafrd

Banned
I have talked to many WW2 and Korean vets and they almost universally tell me that they did fine with the Garand and even those that stayed in after Korea and got the M14 (someone needs to tell people that the M14 was the standard US Army weapon going into Vietnam before the mattel tinker toy replaced it).
The garand gave you 8 rds and a pretty quick reload capacity.
The 30-06 was a VERY good rd and did all that we needed of it.
The M14 was a fine weapon and frankly I wish we had kept it.
 
The M14 was a fine weapon and frankly I wish we had kept it.

The Army still uses them to a limited degree in Afghanistan (albeit, heavily modified) against targets an M4 would not otherwise be able to effectively engage/eliminate.
 
^I've heard the same from veterans I've talked to: they generally liked the Garand and appreciated it's stopping power.

Also, the Communists didn't use the AK-47 in Korea. IIRC, it's combat debut was during the suppression of the Hungarian Uprising in 1956. A few might have seen use against the French in the later stages of the Indochina War, though I'm inclined to doubt that.
 
Gentlemen, you're missing the easy choice of round: the .278 pedersen. The round was considered for the Garand before standardization. The US Army only went with .30-06 because they have massive stocks left over from the Great War.
 
This one is actually very, very easy to find a POD for.

The United States, as we know, fielded the M1 Garand as its infantry rifle in WWII. Like most forces, they found the gun unwieldy for paratrooper operations and the like. Unlike most, they also realized that the infantry rifle round was grossly overpowered and looked for a lighter and handier weapon. They eventually put together a weapon which was (as originally envisioned) selective fire and shooting an intermediate round. They removed the ability to shoot automatic from the original design, but reintroduced it in 1944. Troops were very split on whether they liked the Garand or the new gun more.

What did they do wrong on the M1A/M2 carbine? The mistake was small but telling: when the Germans and Soviets made their assault rifles, they cut down a rifle bullet. The American gun juiced up a pistol round. That was the error.

So, someone designs a shortened .30-06 much like the Germans made a shorter version of their rifle cartridge and they use that in the carbine. Instant US assault rifle... in 1942. And in large quantities.
Actually, the OTL M1 grew out of an interwar program examining a .276, which Garand could never get to feed properly (because of the lubed ammo?), while CoS MacArthur demanded it use the .30-'06 round 'cause the Army had such large stocks of ammo...:eek: Suppose it'd occurred to Garand to shorten the .30-'06 & neck it, making a .276-'06 Short (7x40mm).:cool::cool: It could enter service as early as 1931-2 (instead of '36:eek: OTL) & be more/less standard across the U.S. military (including the MC?) by '40. It'd still have problems with the lo ammo cap (maybe 10rd, versus OTL 8) 'cause the Army demanded a mag flush with the furniture,:confused: & the auto-eject when empty,:confused: both of which could easily be cured with a 20-30rd M14-style mag as hi-ROF engagements showed 10 isn't near enough... And to save money, simple metal folding stocks, which would also be useful for paras, tankers (due to close quarters, retain the 10rd mag?), & so on... Plus, with hi-ROF, accuracy is less a concern than laying down fire, so even troops like clerks & truck drivers (10rd mag, still?), for whom the M1 Carbine was mainly intended (pistol not powerful enough, M1903 too unwieldy), could use it successfully.
 
Top