So they've tried one Buck Rogers super advanced rifle and it was junk and they're going to try another?
WI: US has not adopted a semi-auto rifle by its entry to WWII
- Thread starter SealTheRealDeal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- world war 2
Are you actually asking whether I understood properly what the OP said, or you are asking him for clarification? Why would the semi-auto be a super advanced rifle in inter-war period?
Deleted member 1487
Since the entire plan for the US squad's firepower was to revolve around the semi-auto rifle this would leave them very badly outgunned, which they basically were anyway IOTL, just not so badly. The problem with the POD is that the US already had a bunch of designs pre-WW1 to pick from and were actually used in WW1 by the Entente before US entry. I honestly don't know how the US couldn't have a functional semi-auto rifle by the 1930s.
Deleted member 1487
The M1 Carbine was specifically designed NOT to be a front line weapon, rather a pistol replacement that was just more capable.
I didn't specify any exact POD, could be army conservatism, could be budgetary issues, could be that the contenders for the contest all happened to be crap like the Thomson Rifle, could be different R&D priorities, and could also be a combination of some/all of those.
Did you use a 1903A3? Because they improved the sights in '42 based on combat experience, the original ladder sights were great for match shooting but awful for battlefield use.
Deleted member 1487
If it were some of those, they'd probably be able to spend on the less expensive weapon system in the small arms matrix, like the Germans, French (though they did buy new bolt actions, semi-auto rifles, AND at LMG...no wonder they were behind in their rearmament plans), and British did, the squad automatic weapon. It's a lot cheaper to replace the BAR with something more modern and able to make up the lower ROF from bolt action rifles. Hell, even buying 2 Lewis Assault Phase Rifles instead of 1 BAR would be cheaper than replacing all the rifles the army has.
That or they could be really dumb and double down on the BAR equipping the squad with 2 instead of 1 and declaring the problem solved.
Marine platoon org 1942. I do believe they still had Springfields. If I am counting correctly they have five BARs in a platoon.
The D-1 Squad and platoon is of interest because of its 9 men number, and the platoon was assigned an "Automatic Rifle Squad".
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/s...e-Squad-The-begginings-of-the-modern-fireteam
Fig 1. A Marine Rifle Squad in a D-1 organization.
The Platoon consisted of a Headquarters Element with:
1x Platoon Commander (A 1st or 2nd Lt)
1x Platoon Sergeant (Platoon Sergeant)
1x Guide (Sergeant)
1x Demolition Corporal (Corporal)
3x Messengers (Pfc/Pvt)
It had three Rifle Squads each with:
1x Squad Leader (Sergeant)
1x Assistant Squad Leader (Corporal)
1x Automatic Rifleman (Pfc/Pvt)
1x Assistant Automatic Rifleman (Pfc/Pvt)
1x Rifle Grenadier (Pfc/Pvt)
2x Riflemen (Pfc/Pvt)
2x Scouts (Pfc/Pvt)
There was also an Automatic Rifle Squad with:
1x Squad Leader (Sergeant carrying an SMG)
2x Automatic Riflemen (Pfc/Pvt)
2x Assistant Automatic Rifleman (Pfc/Pvt)
3x Riflemen (Pfc/Pvt)
The BAR count was increased after initial experience in the Pacific (1943 version). I'd imagine something like this with M-4s or M-1 carbines for the non riflemen.
1x Platoon Commander (1Lt/2Lt)
1x Platoon Sergeant (Platoon Sergeant)
1x Guide (Sergeant)
1x Demolition Corporal (Corporal)
3x Messengers (Pfc/Pvt)
Three Rifle Squads each with:
1x Squad Leader (Sergeant)
1x Assistant Squad Leader (Corporal)
2x Automatic Riflemen (Pfc/Pvt)
2x Assistant Automatic Riflemen (Pfc/Pvt)
1x Grenadier (Pfc/Pvt)
5x Riflemen (Pfc/Pvt)
The D-1 Squad and platoon is of interest because of its 9 men number, and the platoon was assigned an "Automatic Rifle Squad".
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/s...e-Squad-The-begginings-of-the-modern-fireteam
Fig 1. A Marine Rifle Squad in a D-1 organization.
The Platoon consisted of a Headquarters Element with:
1x Platoon Commander (A 1st or 2nd Lt)
1x Platoon Sergeant (Platoon Sergeant)
1x Guide (Sergeant)
1x Demolition Corporal (Corporal)
3x Messengers (Pfc/Pvt)
It had three Rifle Squads each with:
1x Squad Leader (Sergeant)
1x Assistant Squad Leader (Corporal)
1x Automatic Rifleman (Pfc/Pvt)
1x Assistant Automatic Rifleman (Pfc/Pvt)
1x Rifle Grenadier (Pfc/Pvt)
2x Riflemen (Pfc/Pvt)
2x Scouts (Pfc/Pvt)
There was also an Automatic Rifle Squad with:
1x Squad Leader (Sergeant carrying an SMG)
2x Automatic Riflemen (Pfc/Pvt)
2x Assistant Automatic Rifleman (Pfc/Pvt)
3x Riflemen (Pfc/Pvt)
The BAR count was increased after initial experience in the Pacific (1943 version). I'd imagine something like this with M-4s or M-1 carbines for the non riflemen.
1x Platoon Commander (1Lt/2Lt)
1x Platoon Sergeant (Platoon Sergeant)
1x Guide (Sergeant)
1x Demolition Corporal (Corporal)
3x Messengers (Pfc/Pvt)
Three Rifle Squads each with:
1x Squad Leader (Sergeant)
1x Assistant Squad Leader (Corporal)
2x Automatic Riflemen (Pfc/Pvt)
2x Assistant Automatic Riflemen (Pfc/Pvt)
1x Grenadier (Pfc/Pvt)
5x Riflemen (Pfc/Pvt)
Peephole if I recollect (its been about 3 decades). Not ladder sights.
Now that you wrote that, we both know what the answer would be now don't we...
What I'm saying is that there was already scepticism about semi automatic rifles and that the flop of the program would only reinforce that. In that atmosphere, and given the severe financial restrictions on the US military between the wars the chances of them then adopting a completely new class of weapon (the semi automatic personal defence weapon) when a pistol of proven design does the same job are all but non existent.
Deleted member 1487
*sigh* Yes.Now that you wrote that, we both know what the answer would be now don't we...
That's your answer, the A3 took the Springfield from a Mauser with awful sights and an overpowered cartridge to a Mauser with decent sights and an overpowered cartridge. I'd have preferred a Kar98 with decent sights and a decent cartridge from day one.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on whether a 1942 issue military ball .30-06 is an overpowered cartridge.
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2018/March/Infantry-Squad-Part-1/
Recommend reading this article about the history of US Army infantry squad doctrine. The fact is the US Army focused their squads around the BAR and they didn't change FM 7-10 until 1942...3 years after the start of WWII...so that means it took them a long time to integrate the lessons learned from the successful German tactics.
Doctrine just doesn't turn on a dime, especially when you are talking about the US military (and I do policy and doctrine as a living).
Recommend reading this article about the history of US Army infantry squad doctrine. The fact is the US Army focused their squads around the BAR and they didn't change FM 7-10 until 1942...3 years after the start of WWII...so that means it took them a long time to integrate the lessons learned from the successful German tactics.
Doctrine just doesn't turn on a dime, especially when you are talking about the US military (and I do policy and doctrine as a living).
It's a longer, higher pressure cartridge than 7.92 Mauser never mind .303 British or the best (and lightest) battle rifle cartridge of the second war the 6.5 Carcano but .30-06 doesn't kill you any deader than any of the other battle rifle rounds. The advantages of a lighter cartridge for follow up shots, training, logistically everything are numerous and conclusive and as the most powerful of major nation cartridge the .30-06 was by definition the worst.
First, the M1903 was just another touchstone in Springfield's long, long line of failures. Certainly the best Mauser, and possibly the best rifle, of the Great War was the P13 Enfield and its descendants. There is no real difference between .30-06 and 8 mm Mauser as military cartridges.
Second, the US squad of the time relied heavily on the ability of the maneuver element's five or six Garands to match the ability of the BAR section to act as a base of fire to cover the repositioning of the BAR. The most basic response would be to give the squad two BARs, possibly retaining the scout element and just using two maneuver elements. German squad tactics are obviously not something you would want to copy, but the Army probably wouldn't figure that our until after the war.
The lack of a self-loading infantry rifle might spur increased development in light machine guns in the interwar period. The BAR is already pretty crappy in this role compared to foreign designs. However, improvements along the lines of the Swedish BARs, with pistol grips, bipods, and QD barrels would have been good. There were also belt-fed BAR designs floating around circa 1940, like the Swedish design that essentially pulls the belt up through the magazine well. Bill Ruger's T23 turned the BAR upside down to convert for top-feed (belt-feed with a normal feed mechanism is basically a type of top-feed), like how the PK machine gun is an upside down AK. FN basically did the same thing to make the MAG, just two decades later and with an MG42 trigger.
Second, the US squad of the time relied heavily on the ability of the maneuver element's five or six Garands to match the ability of the BAR section to act as a base of fire to cover the repositioning of the BAR. The most basic response would be to give the squad two BARs, possibly retaining the scout element and just using two maneuver elements. German squad tactics are obviously not something you would want to copy, but the Army probably wouldn't figure that our until after the war.
The lack of a self-loading infantry rifle might spur increased development in light machine guns in the interwar period. The BAR is already pretty crappy in this role compared to foreign designs. However, improvements along the lines of the Swedish BARs, with pistol grips, bipods, and QD barrels would have been good. There were also belt-fed BAR designs floating around circa 1940, like the Swedish design that essentially pulls the belt up through the magazine well. Bill Ruger's T23 turned the BAR upside down to convert for top-feed (belt-feed with a normal feed mechanism is basically a type of top-feed), like how the PK machine gun is an upside down AK. FN basically did the same thing to make the MAG, just two decades later and with an MG42 trigger.
Deleted member 1487
By inches and degrees. And you also have to define what the criteria are for 'good' or 'best' to actually compare all the factors to draw an overall conclusion.
Well if the 1903 Springfield was the worst rifle then they also made a large number of M1917 Enfields regarded by many as the finest bolt action rifle ever made - in fact more doughboys went to France armed with the M1917 than they did armed with the Springfield.
Maybe the M1917 Eddystone or a later version of it continues to be built
Maybe the M1917 Eddystone or a later version of it continues to be built