|
Post by volkssturm on Sept 26, 2014 13:18:02 GMT -5
I think most people here have heard of the Johnson Rifle which might have been an alternative to the M1 Garand. There was another rifle in contention for the role of US service rifle, the Winchester G30. This began as a design by John Browning's half-brother, Jonathan (must have been a little confusing at Browning family get-togethers), with later work done by David Marshall Williams, who designed the short stroke piston used in the M1 Carbine. www.uscarbines.com/williams5.htmlWilliams also designed an alternative to the M1 Carbine, which in the '50's contributed to the Winchester Light Military Rifle, which competed for adoption against the AR15.
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on Sept 26, 2014 20:28:41 GMT -5
Good stuff, man. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 26, 2014 21:06:43 GMT -5
I agree. A neat insight into a little known, behind the scenes effort by our arms industry during the war. The fact that we were decisive about what to go with, made a choice and focused our production on individual designs had great impact on our ability to produce both quality and quantity. No other country did as fine a job of equipping, arming, feeding and supplying their military. Victory was the clear goal and it was earned, not won.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Sept 26, 2014 22:28:44 GMT -5
Generals Marshall and McNair enforced a "battle necessity" doctrine, where they wouldn't allow changes unless the requesters could prove "necessity". They knew that ordnance would go crazy with new doodads and geegaws if they didn't keep a tight rein on them. Sometimes it prevented weapons and equipment that would have been useful from getting into service in a timely manner, but it also kept production of proven weapons moving efficiently. The Germans were always strapped for resources. They had a lot of brilliant development going on, but they never managed to really get the production levels they needed.
Still, it would be neat if we had a choice of US Rifle M1, M2 or M3 or the Johnson LMG.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 26, 2014 23:07:41 GMT -5
The Johnson Light Machinegun in my mind made sense as a squad automatic weapon to replace the BAR.
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on Sept 27, 2014 14:54:24 GMT -5
Contrast with the haphazard, byzantine, half-arsed, start-and-stop R&D and procurement practices of the Germans-- for which a great deal (though not all) of the problems occurred thanks to der Fuehrer.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 27, 2014 15:15:39 GMT -5
The Corporal was definitely a hinderance. There are many who said an assasination attempt by the allies would have been a mistake as the other key folks who might have replaced him would have been more open to practical input such as building the ME262 in numbers as a FIGHTER, introducing the STG 44 earlier and allowing retrograde operations when appropriate in place of LAST MAN STANDING orders that got whole armies surrounded. the list of incompetance is myriad.
Germans have always had a fascination with over engineering and striving for the ultimate at the expense of practicality. Hitler naturally thought like a corporal. Which tank would I rather be in a TIGER or a Sherman? Never mind that the build energy meant production, availability, logistics, training, uniformity and strategic effectiveness would ultimately spell defeat.
It was awesome that alternatives were created that were no doubt very good. each undoubtedly had advantages over the M1s but thank GOD Roosevelt was smart enought to let Marshall drive that bus.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Sept 27, 2014 21:51:59 GMT -5
It's always surprised me that the Army paratroopers never adopted the Johnson LMG. It seems like a perfect fit, since it was designed with a quick removable barrel to make it easier to jump with.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 27, 2014 23:03:41 GMT -5
I agree.
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on Sept 28, 2014 9:36:50 GMT -5
The Corporal was definitely a hinderance. There are many who said an assasination attempt by the allies would have been a mistake as the other key folks who might have replaced him would have been more open to practical input such as building the ME262 in numbers as a FIGHTER, introducing the STG 44 earlier and allowing retrograde operations when appropriate in place of LAST MAN STANDING orders that got whole armies surrounded. the list of incompetance is myriad. In point of fact, the Allies (specifically the Brits) did have a highly developed plan in place to assassinate Hitler at Berchtesgaden, using a British sniper team in SS uniforms. One of the chief factors in shelving it was the realization that Hitler's leadership was hindering the German war effort, and he was worth more to the Allies alive and in charge than dead.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 28, 2014 13:28:56 GMT -5
Interesting.
|
|
Dracul
Master sergeant
Posts: 1,341
|
Post by Dracul on Sept 28, 2014 16:11:24 GMT -5
I like that "Williams .50 caliber Browning Semi-Automatic Anti-Tank Gun". Seems to be the precursor to the modern day Barret rifles. Not sure how much impact the .50 cal round would have had on enemy tanks and vehicles during that time, but I can only imagine just how much that thing must had kicked and how loud that would have been when you fired it.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Sept 28, 2014 18:47:25 GMT -5
The Browning .50 cartridge was based on a German anti-tank cartridge of WWI. Most pre-WWII tanks were relatively thin skinned compared to what they quickly became after the war started, so anti-tank rifles were considered practical anti-tank defenses. Even later in the war they were effective against light armored vehicles and against the hull sides and rear of many tanks. The main drawback of course was that the anti-tank gunner had to be fairly close and it was kind of a suicidal job.
|
|