WI: US has not adopted a semi-auto rifle by its entry to WWII
- Thread starter SealTheRealDeal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- world war 2
If they are worked up to use a semi automatic rifle and it is a disaster and war clouds are on the horizon they have a desperate need to back up the bolt action rifles with a proper LMG that does work. If they can conquer the perennial USA NIH syndrome then get one off the shelf. Do they want magazine or belt fed? For magazine then the Czechs or British have theirs available drawn in Imperial dimensions and strong enough for 30.06 with rimless design parts and needing only a touch more chamber length and 50% more magazine capacity than a BAR.
The FN-branch Euro-BARs, particularly the Swedish ones, had enough good modifications (pistol grip, QD barrel) to make something competitive (just barely) with the Bren. The M1919 was complete garbage in the LMG role, which was why the Army issued requirements in 1939 for a new belt-fed LMG. Most of the entries were M1919 derivatives, but Auto-Ordnance, possibly in collaboration with Colt, offered Bill Ruger's first gun, an upside down belt-fed BAR that eventually evolved, at least conceptually, into the FN MAG and the M240. The Ordnance Corps' in general, and Springfield Arsenal's in particular, history is composed of an almost unbroken chain of criminal negligence that has cost the lives of tens of thousands of American soldiers.
Last edited:
You forget though they had a working assault rifle and used it, and still got their heads kicked in.
Right. However those could be modified to a .30-06, or move on from that caliber (as occurred with the M-1 carbine, which was a derivative of a Winchester design IIRC).
Deleted member 1487
They only had a tiny number that actually saw service (half of those built were never issued) and even among those they averaged only two magazines per rifle, with serious ammo shortages. Since Hitler only ordered it into production in mid-1944 it was way too late to get it into large scale production due to the bombing and general war situation.
I was responding to the idea that the ALL infantry rifles (not sniper I'm assuming) are replaced with M16s early on; the M16 was superior to the StG44 by a significant margin and if available early enough and totally it would really be a game changer for infantry combat. Would you really want to fight a M16+MG42 squad armed with a bolt action rifle and maybe supported by a magazine fed LMG/Automatic Rifle?
Deleted member 1487
Sure...but if bolt action rifles now are replaced with a light assault rifle where each man could carry >300 rounds per person (bolt action rifle ammo loads were about 100 rounds) infantry rifle casualties are going to go way up, as you no longer need to rely on the MG to be the basis of squad firepower. In fact you probably could relegate the MG to a platoon support weapon and have all M16 squads that would dominate any sort of Allied squad in infantry combat. Apparently even the StG44 only squads could easily best the Garand+BAR squads in firepower even without MG support.
Deleted member 1487
Congress didn't make the choice, Dugout Doug demanded it and then the resulting rifle never ended up using all the mountains of ammo in store, because of the switch to a new ammo design for the .30-06 as the old stuff was deemed to hazardous to use in the existing rifle ranges.
Fair point. I should have been more clear, to say the Germans had such a rifle and were using it in 1944 / 1945. It was effective but not a game changer vs. its opponents. But it did help spur both the Soviets and the US to look at developing higher capacity rifles or full auto assault rifles.
The M-1 Garand also does not take a full power heavy .30-06 load. I do not know what the parameters of the pre-WWI ball ammunition were, but I know that if you shoot an M-1, you have to buy a particular type of .30-06 ammunition - a lighter 150 grain round. Modern ammunition is generally unsafe in Garands. I don't know if this is a later development, or if the Garands themselves required that.
Better than M16 would be a select fire M4 - crap for parade and Bayonet drill - fucking excellent for everything else
To Vikings point - despite the M16s poor reputation for reliability which has dogged it decades after the issues were rapidly resolved - it is accepted that the M16s introduction and replacement of the M14 saved as many as 20 thousand US lives in Vietnam due to its light weight, accuracy and the ability to carry about twice as much ammo than an AK47 armed VC/NVA soldier for the same weight meaning that the GIs would be more likely to dominate and win a given firefight that was decided by small arms alone.
To Vikings point - despite the M16s poor reputation for reliability which has dogged it decades after the issues were rapidly resolved - it is accepted that the M16s introduction and replacement of the M14 saved as many as 20 thousand US lives in Vietnam due to its light weight, accuracy and the ability to carry about twice as much ammo than an AK47 armed VC/NVA soldier for the same weight meaning that the GIs would be more likely to dominate and win a given firefight that was decided by small arms alone.
Deleted member 1487
It was for infantry combat, but by the point it got into service in any sort of appreciable numbers it couldn't be reliably supplied with ammo and Germany was already defeated. For any sort of infantry weapon to have an appreciable effect, you'd need to have it be available en masse earlier in the war when it could be supplied and used at the point when a potential change was possible. In 1941 such a weapon available to all infantry would have a major impact on infantry combat. Even in 1944 is ASBs made it available like that it would have a major impact, just not enough to arrest the collapsing strategic situation. In 1941 or earlier its potentially a different story.
The Garand was ultimately never used with the M1 Ball ammo and when Doug MacArthur originally ordered it to be used with existing stocks of .30-06, which was quickly changed due to the claim that it was too powerful for use on rifle ranges, I think they found that the heavier bullet ammo of the M1 was simply too hard recoiling for the rifle to handle. Apparently the main element of recoil is the weight of the bullet itself, which when coupled with the higher pressure that usually comes with a longer, heavier bullet compressing the powder load means bad things for the rifle long term. The same thing happened with the M4 carbine when they adopted the bigger, heavier M855A1 bullet and more powerful powder to increase velocity to the point that they had to downrate the powder load and to some degree accept the wear and tear on the rifle to get the performance they wanted.
As to the Garand and special ammo, it may also be that WW2 M1s are too old to really be challenged by higher pressure loadings now, which they might have been when they were new. Likely they also were overgassed to increase reliability in the field, a common design characteristic of military designs with gas pistons, but which reduces weapon life; that isn't generally a problem as militaries assume that weapon loss rates in combat in wars will likely to substantial, so they don't worry about it and assume they will just replace it before it gets shaken apart by the ammo. That's not helpful for modern collectors who have old rifles they shoot, so modern shooters have to 'baby' said rifles with lower pressure ammo to prevent serious damage. I saw a video on youtube recently where a collector was talking about old Gewehr 43s that had this problem and explained why and why you need to use special ammo and modify the gun so that it doesn't break itself; apparently he had seen at least 2 such rifles break in use because of the use of surplus military ammo and the overgassed design, as the rifle wasn't expected to be used decades later, rather it would be lost in combat in a matter of months and replaced.
Yeah that would be even better. Forgetting even the ACOG enhancements and other picatinny rail tactical gear the ease of use and light weight would be a quantum leap over anything in the field in WW2. I'd hate to think of the results of using that weapon against Soviet massed charges that were happened in 1941-42. Plus it would save a ton of ammo, as one 7.92x57 round for a K98k or MG34 weighed as much as at least 3x 5.56 rounds. There is a good video on youtube of a marksman using the K98k with iron sights on a range and him listing the complaints with the rifle show much more room for improvement, especially as in another video he uses an M4 on the same range and the results are majorly better. I can link if you'd like, though the M4 came with an ACOG IIRC.
Even the OTL Vietnam M16s faced problems mainly because of the tropical environment and early models lacking the chrome barrel lining, which wouldn't be an issue in Europe, even Eastern Europe, while the lack of cleaning training and equipment was the next biggest issue. Interestingly I read an account recently from a VC soldier who fought in Hue and eventually got her hands on an M16 after using an AK47 and an M1 Carbine and just loving how much easier and more comfortable the M16 was to use, which improved her accuracy in combat quite a bit. It was in Mark Bowden's (of Blackhawk Down fame) book "Battle of Hue". Granted she was a rather slight young woman by the description, but if she found it so much better I'm sure the average American conscript found it light years easier to use than the M14. Per the Operations Research from Korea that helped lead to the M16 a full power battle rifle like the M1 Garand was simply a lot tougher for a conscript to use effectively in combat than a light rifle, so having a weapon that is easy for an inexperienced, non-professional soldier/shooter to master quickly you're going to dramatically increase the effectiveness of infantry in tactical combat.
Rim lock was almost impossible to make even on when trying: video. Once that happened (9 min into the video), the remedy is stupidly simple.
Rimmed rounds worked with box magazines (fixed or not), pan-magazines and belt feed.
Indeed, you're right.
Agree pretty much. Of historical 6.5mm rounds of ww2 era, the Italian is way worse than Japanese or Norwegian/Swedish types. Light spitzer bullets were far superior to the heavy round-tip bullets used on the Carcano back in ww2.
Deleted member 1487
Huh? The Carcano was probably better in performance than the weaker Japanese round. The Swedish 6.5 was a lot more powerful, so even with the round nosed bullet did pretty well. With the spitzer sniper ammo it got even better, but that was only introduce in the 1940s and that bullet design wasn't IIRC available for all rifle/mgs during WW2.
The Italians agreed re the round nosed 6.5mm, hence the 7.35mm sptitzer which made better use of the case. As to comparatives; it depends on what you use as your measure. The Japanese and even more the Norwegian or Swedish 6.5mm cases were more powerful but the 7.35mm Carcano was an easy round for the average rifleman at actual battle distances. Hence sighted for less than 200 metres. In all but the nomenclature it was a virtual intermediate round. The bolt action rifle that used it was neither poor nor excellent. It was what it was made to be. Adequate and cheap to make. Perfectly serviceable. It could be better but it had no real faults. I have to agree with Ian of Forgotten weapons that the 7.35mm Carcano was a very practical bolt action rifle. We shall not speak of the Breda LMG.....
7.35 makes even more sense when you consider that the Italians had been trying to standardize their own semi-auto, which would have really been able to take advantage of those short-intermediate range ballistics.
Moose's prewar equipment plans look pretty modern: 9mm pistol round (didn't standardize on a single 9mm round mind you), intermediate/low end full power 7.35 rifle round, big meaty 8mm machine gun round, some limited use of the air force's 12.7mm round by the army...
Of 6.5mm ammo, Arisaka was good for 2666 J, Carcano 2570 J, from full-length rifle barrels (data from Wikipedia). Spitzer bullet of the Arisaka will retain speed & energy far better than the Carcano, and have the edge in terminal effectiveness. Italians have dropped the ball by not making spitzer bullet for their 6.5mm.
Deleted member 1487
For one thing, the barrel length for the numbers on Wikipedia is longer for the Arisaka than the Carcano, so that matters somewhat. Also the numbers on the page for the Type 38 Arisaka rifle are lower than on the ammo page even with the same barrel length. I think it is likely that they were roughly comparable in performance from similar length weapons and both seem to rely on very long barrels to get their performance. Without a doubt though the spitzer makes a vast difference and I'd be curious to know how each would perform with a 90 grain flat base bullet as used in some loadings of the 6.5 Grendel:
I'm thinking given the light weight and the power of either cartridge it would do a lot of damage at any normal combat range. I guess neither the Japanese or Italians did a trial like the US Pig Board. To some degree the Italians apparently did realize the lighter, faster 7.35mm bullet was a better option, but have no idea why they wouldn't first try something in 6.5mm with a similar design.
Yes but the quote was comparing it to F15s,
I would suggest that F15s (especially strike eagles) would end the war far earlier by being able to accurately strike Berlin from England from day 1 by comparison better rifles are still marginal even if they are 50+% better. (and even fighter types would be similarly devastating to LW that we would be talking years off the war not months of rifles)
marathag
Banned
Would not be surprised on the IJA HQ gave out 'recommendations' on a few different bases to see what was more lethal, the 7.7 used by the IJN or the 6.5mm, by going out and shooting some Chinese POWs and Civilians
SwampTiger
Banned
The 6.5x50SR Arisaka started with a 162 grain/10.5 gram round nose bullet fired at 2330 fps/700 mps. The Type 38 rifle came with a new load of a 139 grain/9 gram spitzer at 2500 fps/760 mps. The Italians stayed with their 6.5x52 Carcano utilizing a 162 grain/10.5 gram round nose bullet at 2300 fps/@700 mps. The 7.35x51 Carcano used the same case but went to a 128 grain/8.3 gram spire point at 2480 fps/756 mps. The barrel length differed between the two cartridges. The Italians tried to switch because of overpenetration by the long round nosed bullet and poor terminal performance, ie. needle holes not incapacitating opponents. Similar to the reason for the Japanese change. The Japanese later began to change to a 7.7X58 rimless round with a 175 grain/11 gram spitzer at 2440 fps/740 mps.
The Arisaka rifle is substantially better than the Carcano. It also had a better round after 1905.
The Arisaka rifle is substantially better than the Carcano. It also had a better round after 1905.