|
Post by volkssturm on May 28, 2020 22:51:25 GMT -5
It's kind of quiet around here. Here's a place to discuss weapons that were proposed or in development that might have made it to the big leagues. And if they had they would have given future Airsofters more toys to choose from. First on my list would be the Winchester M2. It was Winchester's effort to make a semi-auto Cal. 30 rifle lighter than the M1 Garand. Never got beyond prototype but it was the basis for what became the M1 Carbine. The prototype never got as far as having a rear sight installed. The resemblance to a Springfield 03A3 is notable. (picture snipped from the Forgotten Weapons video) www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWrJ8DSguEMFor the Italians, a cool addition that would level the playing field a little would be the Armaguerra Model 1939. This one almost made it. An order was placed for 10,000, but the war started, the rifle had to be converted from the new 7.35mm to the standard 6.5mm and only about a hundred were ever made. (picture snipped from video) www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ9IACssv2YAnother Italian weapon that would be cool to have is the Scotti Model 37. Couldn't find much on it besides mention in this video. It was a top feed LMG. I think it used the same action as the Scotti Model X (the X stand for 10, being the tenth year of the Fascist regime). It's hard to imagine that it wouldn't have been a step up from the standard Italian LMG. (pic snipped from video) www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGvPBGMX21s
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jun 14, 2020 17:02:27 GMT -5
The Springfield M2 is quite elegant looking. It looks like a large Marlin .22. You absolutely can see than elements from the 1903a4 were in abundance.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jun 14, 2020 20:30:47 GMT -5
And one that might have been for the Brits (by way of Canada). The Turner Enfield semi-auto conversion. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOgw59_lt7oDesigned by American Russell Turner and tested by Canada in 1941. The idea was to produce a self-loading rifle that simplified production by using as many SMLE parts as possible. Turner did a remarkable job. The action uses an unusual side tilting bolt. Overall a relatively clean design, though there's bits that would likely have been tidied up if it had been developed further. It was tested against the Garand and was said to work better in very cold temperatures.Like so many weapon might-have-beens, the timing just wasn't right. Had it been designed and the bugs wrung out before the war it might have gone into production. If Canada adopted it there's a chance the British might have as well. But by 1941 the No. 4 Enfield was in production and there's was little chance of change. It occurs to me that what would have made the Turner rifle really cool would have been if he'd used No. 4 Enfield parts and replace his long stroke piston with the Williams tappet used in the M1 Carbine, though that would have run into patent problems with Winchester.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jul 5, 2020 14:24:38 GMT -5
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jul 5, 2020 22:12:48 GMT -5
Looks like the guns from the Planet of the Apes.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jul 24, 2020 12:32:39 GMT -5
This one came close. The Berthier light machinegun / automatic rifle. Developed by Berthier before WWI it was accepted by the US Army as the "Machinegun, Light, Model 1917," but the war ended before it got into production. It was then determined that it still needed some more development and it was dropped. Besides, they already had the BAR in production. It's a shame, because it would probably have performed the LMG role better than the BAR. Remarkably clean looking design when you compare it to something like the Hotchkiss Portativ. Vickers took over the design as the Vickers-Berthier and it competed with, but lost out, to the Bren Gun for adoption by the British Army. It was, though, adopted by the Indian Army and was generally well regarded. And here's a video about the Vickers-Berthier as used by the Indian Army. www.bing.com/videos/search?q=vickers-berthier+machine+gun&docid=608000569744624248&mid=8413E7D06C658B0B36468413E7D06C658B0B3646&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jul 24, 2020 20:57:43 GMT -5
Very clean simplistic design.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jul 26, 2020 13:14:27 GMT -5
I was pondering the Berthier vs. the BAR and I think I had an "ah ha!" moment. I've always been perplexed why the US Army didn't adopt a true pistol grip for the BAR. The Swedes and Poles both adopted BAR's with the pistol grip, and Colt produced their "Monitor" version of the BAR for law enforcement with a pistol grip. The US Army stuck with the "deer rifle" stock design (in true Ordnance Department style they "improved" the BAR by making it heavier and more cumbersome, but not making a simple change that would have imho significantly improved handling). And then I thought about the doctrine of "Marching Fire" aka "Walking Fire" that was the official way to do it at the time. i.e. walking towards the enemy firing a shot (or short burst from the BAR) every couple paces, either from the shoulder or "point and shoot" style. The BAR was intended to be fired from the hip when used in this role. The early WWI BAR magazine belts included a metal cup on the right hip to hold the butt of the BAR. Ergonomically the sporting rifle stock makes more sense if you're holding the BAR at your waist. Still a wrong decision imho not to change it. According to the Wiki article on Marching Fire General Patton was a proponent of it, but after the war it was pretty much determined to be not very effective. Unless you can deliver such a volume of fire that the defenders can't stick their heads up the attackers, standing up and walking forward, are just so many targets. The WWI BAR mag belt with cup to hold the BAR butt when firing from the hip.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jul 28, 2020 1:26:57 GMT -5
You and I were probably both at one point trained on "Walking fire". I remember in ROTC at FTXs being instructed to get on line, hold the rifle at the waist, parallel to the ground and fire as each left foot touched the ground while advancing. It struck me as total nonsense at the time and thankfully was only done with blanks. M14s, so very much like a BAR. My first year we had Garands. The M14 seemed so much cooler. We did not have blank adapters for the M1s so had to dock them everytime.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jul 28, 2020 11:53:55 GMT -5
Yes, I remember that. We had a manual, "Tactical Training of the Individual Soldier," that included walking fire. I don't recall that we ever practiced it. We had Garands my first two years. When junior year started all the Garands were gone and we had all M14's.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jul 28, 2020 18:44:19 GMT -5
I figured as much. I remember being amazed at the disassembly and reassembly process for military weapons as being the coolest thing. The M16 being the weapon I spent the most time with. My son was shocked that after 40years of not touching one I could still hesitantly and quickly break one down and put it back together.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Dec 3, 2020 13:07:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Dec 4, 2020 16:05:44 GMT -5
Here's one that came within one man's decision of being adopted, the John C. Garand T3A2 trials rifle in .276 caliber. The Army was ready to adopt it, but Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur said no, we're staying with the .30-06. The resemblance to the M1 Garand is obvious, since Ordnance adapted this design to use the .30-06. The result was the M1 was a little heavier, slightly longer, and had an 8 round en bloc clip instead of a ten round clip. Forgotten Weapons has a good episode on the T3A2. Among the points Ian brings up is that the .276 cartridge is lighter and has a softer recoil than the .30-06. In the Army's own testing they found that soldiers did better on the target range with the .276 than the .30-06. In a series of tests on sedated goats and pigs (they'd never get away with that now, but it was the 1920's) they found that .30 caliber bullets had a slight advantage in causing wounds at longer range, but .276 and .250 caliber bullets actually caused more damage at closer ranges. Another advantage of switching to the .276 would be that the BAR would have been downsized and lightened a bit. I've read elsewhere that the British were watching the US tests and seriously considering adopting the .276 is the US did. If that had happened the whole course of western firearms history would have changed. There probably wouldn't have been a 7.62 Nato cartridge or the 5.56mm. .276 Pedersen would have become the 7x51mm Nato. And a shortened (M1 "Tanker") version of the .276 Garand might have been practical, making the M1 Carbine unnecessary. But we'll never know, thanks to Doug MacArthur. www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwntZVIoPpI
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 4, 2020 23:16:59 GMT -5
On the table in front of Ian it looked really tiny. When side by side with Garage they looked much closer in size than I thought. The M1 Garage has a very short butt stock. (Almost 2 inches shorter than an M14.). The short Butt stock on an M1 was never an issue for me at 5'7" tall but my 6' and taller Army buddy's would complain about it.
I think its a pretty elegant looking rifle and agree with Ian that the smaller round would have been a winner. A Bar in this caliber would have been a major improvement and 10 ready rounds is always better than 8! Lighter ammo is something airsofters don't fully appreciate. MacArthur as consultant to the Philippine government while still drawing a Generals pay was receiving the equivalent of $300,000.00 a year an expense account and a penthouse apartment in Manila following his extraction from Batman he was paid the equivalent of 8 million dollars as a performance bonus. Mac was a scumbag of the highest order.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Dec 5, 2020 12:38:15 GMT -5
If I had a pile of excess money (is there ever such a thing) I'd hire a gunsmith to build me a .276 Pedersen Garand, just for kicks. It appears cases can be made from the 6.5x52mm Carcano case. They're very close, though the Pedersen appears to have a little more taper. It's kind of interesting that the .276 falls right between the 6.5x52 Carcano and the 7.35x51mm Carcano the Italians were switching to when the war started.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jun 3, 2021 14:31:57 GMT -5
Another video from Forgotten Weapons. This time the MAS44. This is what the French produced when they restarted MAS40 production after the German occupation. Had they been a little quicker in the late '30's the MAS40 is what the French first line soldiers would have carried in the Battle of France. There were some small differences between the MAS40 and MAS44, the biggest one being the MAS40 had a five round internal magazine, changed to a ten round detachable box in the 44. www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCjzyzYVWIc
|
|
|
Post by 2ndbat2 on Jun 4, 2021 0:17:55 GMT -5
Always intriguing and I really enjoy Ian videos and the "What ifs"?
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jun 4, 2021 20:06:32 GMT -5
Here's a new one on me. I haven't run across it before. From the German point of view, it's a shame they didn't proceed with it, because they could have had what's almost a conventional stocked AK-47 at the beginning of the war. The Vollmer M-35. Heinrich Vollmer was a talented designer whose best known product was the Erma MP-35 SMG. In 1935 he was asked to work on a select fire weapon, based on a 7.92x57mm rifle he'd been working on, using a new cartridge, the GECO 7.7x40mm. The M43 cartridge later used by the SKS and AK-47 is a 7.62x39mm. The 7.7 sends a 140 gr. bullet at 2,280 fps, to the 7.62x39's 122 gr. at 2,396 fps. Almost makes you wonder if there was a Soviet spy in the Heereswaffenamt. The M-35 was 38 inches long, making it shorter than the Kar98, and weighed 9.25 lbs. The AK-47 is 35 inches and 7.7 lbs (empty). The M-35 uses a rotating bolt, like the AK and different from the STG-44. One of the problematic points of the design was the gas system. The German Army, like the American Army in the 30's, didn't like drilling gas ports in barrels, so the M-35, like the original Garand and the G-41, used a gas trap over the muzzle to send gas to the piston. Gas traps introduced their own problems and the Garand switched quickly to a gas port, as did the G-43. If the M35 had used a gas port it might have been developed faster. As it was, testing from 1937 to 1939 went well and the M35 was considered a reliable weapon. Then the war started. Not a good time to start up a new production line. The M-35 was also considered too complicated. So, on the shelf it went. Another short cartridge, the 7.92x33mm Kurz, was developed. Instead of further refining the M35 new designs evolved into the Sturmgewhre. Which looking back would seem like a bad decision. The Wehrmacht could potentially have been fielding an "assault rifle" in time for Barbarossa, instead of late 1943. It wouldn't have changed the eoutcome oft he war, but Airsofters would potentially have another WWII weapon to play with. www.historicalfirearms.info/post/136705151849/httpsenwikipediaorgwikivollmerm35
|
|
|
Post by 2ndbat2 on Jun 4, 2021 22:04:51 GMT -5
It's recognizably German but very SKSish as well. This is the first I've heard of it. I am not crazy about its looks. I often think decisions on German weapons often fell on esthetics. All their iconic weapons seem to be elegantly evil looking whether it was an aircraft, ship, tank, grenade or rifle. Anyone else feel like that?
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jun 6, 2021 11:32:13 GMT -5
What makes this period so interesting is the major changes that took place fairly quickly in thinking about how to make firearms. In the '30's and into the war years the conventional idea was you took a block of metal and did a lot of machining, requiring skilled labor, expensive tooling and a lot of time. During the war, when pressed to reduce costs, time and skilled labor the Germans in particular looked at metal stamping as the answer. Comparing the M-35 to the STG-44 you can really see the difference in thinking. The M-35 is made like a "real" firearm. The STG-44 is a few machined parts inside a bunch of stamped metal pieces, welded together. The M-35, like the M1 or the Kar98K, was designed to last a long time. The STG-44 was designed to be used and scrapped when worn out. Comparing the MG-34 and MG-42 is interesting, too. The MG-34 has a lot of machined parts. The MG-42 uses lots of stampings. I've read that the head of the MG-42 project wasn't a firearms designer. He was an expert in metal stamping technology. The US had the luxury of being able to devote resources to traditional methods. The only widely used stamped weapon we had was the M-3 Greasegun (I don't think the single shot "Liberator" pistol really counts). In a way that's odd, because the automobile industry pioneered a lot of metal stamping technology, but US Ordnance was very conservative and remained so into the postwar years.
|
|
|
Post by 2ndbat2 on Jun 6, 2021 15:41:07 GMT -5
The Grease Gun (inspite of its inexpensive production cost) soldiered on a lot longer than the well made Thompsons and the STG 44 is a high value highly sought after relic. Sometimes simple stampings prove more robust and durable than folks anticipated. I have a Vietnam War buddy who carried a Grease gun with three spare magazines as a back up to his M16. In a major firefight at Dogs Head near the cambodian border it proved to be fortuitive. He used it to deadly effect at extremely close range. The sound of a full auto .45 is quite intimidating and may have been one of the reasons the vastly superior numbers of NVA troops ran off. A good thing as his unit was nearly out of ammo. His name is Kregg Jorgenson. (Real name and nothing to do with the rifle). He is an author. His most current book is Chasing Romeo. It's a great read. We do volunteer beach police call together and he teaches tracking and patrolling at my Recondo school. As well as for international law enforcement. Some of his other Nam books are: LRRP commander, Ghosts of the Highlands and Acceptable Loss. He also wrote Beuacoup Ditti Mau. Crazy GI.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jun 7, 2021 12:01:21 GMT -5
The Russians captured tons of STG-44's and sent them to their client states in the Middle East and South Asia as military aid. They're still being used in some places. I understand a lot were found in Syria. Also Pakistan.
|
|
|
Post by 2ndbat2 on Jun 7, 2021 16:43:44 GMT -5
I never saw a STG44 or handled one but there were some reortedly in the hands of the V.C. virtually any weapon produced previously found their way to SE Asia. A wide variety of WW2 weapons ended up in our arms room but never STG 44 or G43. A buddy just back from Afghanistan said delapidated, taped up, old SMLEs were quite common in the hands of enemy troops. These folks were often found with less than 10 rounds for them. Most of course are armed with variations (including home made) versions of the AK47.
|
|
|
Post by hardslack on Jun 11, 2021 13:20:59 GMT -5
Kregg Jorgenson! Very cool 2bat, I've read several of his books over the last year.
|
|
|
Post by 2ndbat2 on Jun 12, 2021 12:22:10 GMT -5
If you read his latest series "Chasing Romeo" my favorite character is...wait for it...Captain John Robison. Captain Robison will have an expanded role in later books but I was extremely flattered that Kregg bases his C.O. on me (I wasnt his C.O. in real life). Kregg and I see each other about once a month and he assists with my annual Recondo school. He also was captured by a CBS camera crew on one of the three times he was wounded. It is a film clip that constantly comes up on facebook. The sgt that was extracted by helicopter was Kregg. He was supposed to be sent home but as soon as he was able he returned to his unit.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Sept 8, 2022 12:56:27 GMT -5
This is a little rumination on what might have been if Ordnance had been a little more forward thinking when they wrote the specifications for the M1 Carbine. What they asked for and what they got was a carbine that could replace the pistol for artillery and MG crews, tank crews, truck drivers, HQ troops. Anyone who might need to defend themselves at relatively short range. And the M1 Carbine does that well. Ian at Forgotten Weapons has a video comparing the .45 Automatic to the M1 in a course of fire. www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSOUmHito4MOf course, the thing is that soldiers didn't limit the use of the M1 Carbine to what it was designed for. It was Too light and handy a weapon not to put on the front line. The Germans particularly liked them and used captured ones. As I see it, there were two problems with the M1. First is Ordnance set a weight limit of 5 lbs. That proved to be almost impossible to meet. The M1 came in at 5.2 lbs. The second is the cartridge. The .30 carbine cartridge was designed by Winchester, based on the .32 Winchester WSL cartridge used in a Winchester blowback operated rifle from 1905. Being blowback operated, the .32 was a low powered cartridge. Winchester lengthened the case and used the then new ball powder to get a respectable performance. 110 grain bullet at 1,990 feet per second, producing 1,311 joules of energy. For comparison, the 7.92x33mm Kurz of the STG-44 has a 125 grain bullet at 2,250 fps and 1,909 j. If Winchester had chosen the .351 SL cartridge (also used in an early Winchester blowback self-loading rifle) as the parent case they could have had a cartridge closer to the 7.92 kurz. Oddly enough, the French had already done this. The French were using Winchester Model 1907's firing .351 SL in WWI. Near the end of the war they were developing the M1918 Ribeyrolle, which would have had a claim to being the first assault weapon if it had gone into service before the war ended. It used what is believed to be a .351 SL case necked down to 8 mm. It was still a relatively low powered cartridge since the Ribeyrolle was a blowback design. When the war ended, work stopped and the concept of the intermediate caliber cartridge went on the back burner, if not completely dropped. So, let's say Winchester picks up the Ribeyrolle cartridge, makes it .30 cal., makes it rimless instead of semi rimmed, develops a loading with ball powder. They probably can get up to the performance of the 7.92K. The problem is, they can't make an M1 carbine using it that only weighs 5 lbs. For one thing, the receiver is going to have to be a bit wider and a bit longer. But we have an example of what they might have made, the Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30. These come in at 6 lbs 6 oz. If instead of downsizing the M-14 they'd upsized the M-1 Carbine I think they might have been able to shave a few ounces off them. And if Ordnance accepted the 6 lb carbine instead of a 5 lb carbine, we might have ended up with what amounted to an actual American Sturmgewhre.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Nov 6, 2022 20:47:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Dec 6, 2022 23:57:42 GMT -5
One that could have been a serious competitor to the M1 if it had been earlier, the Winchester G30R. It was the ultimate development of the series of designs that also produced the M1 Carbine. It was tested in 1943 and by that point it was obvious that the Army was not going to switch from the M1 Garand. You do have to wonder if the Army couldn't have continued work on this instead of the M14, though the Army's thinking with the M14 was that they could reuse a lot of the tooling use to make the M1 for producing the M14, though in the end it turned out that idea didn't work too well. i.pinimg.com/originals/83/bf/bb/83bfbb2b8989e077d34134f143416e25.jpgForgotten Weapons has a video on this. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXCFTST4MBIwww.youtube.com/watch?v=PXCFTST4MBI
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jul 20, 2023 12:09:50 GMT -5
Another Forgotten Weapons video, this one about the Polish BAR. Interesting backstory about how the Poles wanted to buy the rights to build the BAR from FN. FN had a deal with Colt. Colt had the rights to Browning's designs in the western hemisphere and FN had the rights in Europe. But FN didn't have the right to sell other countries the right to build the designs. The Poles ended up reverse engineering the BAR based on the samples they tested, which were actually built by Colt because FN hadn't set up a production line yet. This was early '20's. The Polish BAR was, imho, a major improvement over the BAR the US used, and Colt had already produced examples (you can see the resemblance to the Colt Monitor used by the FBI). So, the question is, WTF was US Ordnance doing that they couldn't see it? www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME0EbkI34Uw
|
|