WI the US kept 30-06 after WW2?

[yeetmahboi]

As I understand from my short read beforehand the US wanted to push a common GPMG cartridge over to NATO (hence early work into 7.62x51) whilst alot of NATO really expected that they would've kept Garands and the ol Springfield, correct?

What can we inject into decision leader's brain this time to keep the horse working for dear life this time? I propose adoption of an intermediate catridge, which would grant enough incentive to keep a massively lighter catridge for light rifles at the lowest echelons. It might be a magnum pistol type round ala 7.62x39 or 30 carbine, a cut down 250 Savage, or a new SCHV type shot and even a reproduction of the IOTL 223 concept. Otherwise I don't see keeping 30-06 as a light rifle round, even Garands needed issuing reduced powder shots to manage.

Further challenge: WI the US Army adopted a T17 necked out to 20mm to replace 50 BMG in HMG use? Essentially taking on the modern PLAGF's massive firepower infantry doctrine with man portable 50cals, except this time lugging a motorized 20mm on a dual purpose 360 tripod mount, with dual feed for fuzed and AP rounds?

 

[Scott Kenny]

The .30-06 was seen as "too much gun" for the infantryman, especially anyone with an automatic rifle (BAR or M15). Also, newer gunpowders made it possible to get .30-06 performance out of a cartridge half an inch shorter, and a rifle half an inch shorter through the receiver and/or chamber is at least a pound lighter.

The Brits were working on a ~7mm (6.8-7mm) cartridge about the same length as the .303, but only doing 140gr at 2400fps. Perfectly adequate for taking down a man, just ask anyone who survived Japanese rifle-fire. Good enough for rifles or LMGs out to 600y, while keeping the bullet trajectory within 6ft of the ground the entire time.

What I'm not clear on is if 140gr at 2400fps was possible out of something roughly 7.62x39 sized back in the 1950s. That's not a lot of case volume, even assuming that whatever bullet used does not protrude into the case below the neck. Only 2.31cc. It was possible by 1996 or so.​

==========

As to your actual post, effectively that's exactly what happened with the 7.62NATO, which had almost identical performance to the M2 Ball round. 147gr at 2800fps.

Unfortunately, LtCol Rene Studler and OrdBu (spits) decided to ignore all the data from the war and demand that no rifle less powerful than the .30-06 would be acceptable. 150gr at 2800fps.

Neither would the UK EM2's bullpup design be acceptable, which automatically knocked it out of the running. At this time, the assumption was that all of NATO would not just use the same ammunition calibers, but would use the same weapons and vehicles as well.

I believe OrdBu's (spits) assumption was that they could reuse the tooling for the Garand with the new cartridge, though that proved to be false. Or at least beyond the capabilities of the engineers at the Springfield Armory (the government one, not the company currently wearing that name)

As to what weapon the Infantry would have, I'd nominate the M2 Carbine. Select fire, adequate out to 300m, and only 5lbs. Maybe give 1 guy per platoon or squad a Garand as the Designated Marksman.

One major problem with keeping the .30-06 in service would be needing to keep the old M1919 Brownings in service. NATO would be stuck without a viable GPMG, unless the US removed head from ass about the MG42 in .30-06 (their original prototype had a measurement error).

I don't think that we'd see a 20mm BMG. The larger ammunition would be heavier, the projectiles slower. And arguably a violation of the 1868 St Petersburg Convention, though the US never signed that one.

 

[yeetmahboi]

@Scott Kenny the Italians made a box fed, select fire M-1 in the form of the BM-59, on a line of scraps of repurposed tooling. The M-14 diverging so much in mechanism should be intentional negligence borderline treason. That being said, ITTL, it will take over the role of a battle rifle instead, to arm snipers. (The M-14, IIRC, is not the best rifle to get an accurizing surgery, because of how the receiver and action is laid out). That being said I can't ever doubt the various American design houses and an in line stock, piston operated battle rifle is barely scratching the depth of their expertise.

Also, I like the T24. It should've been adopted ASAP, if not then inform direct postwar MG development. But we know BuOrd shunned all other alternatives for their brainchild the T60. For all we know they could've sabotaged the T24 IOTL as well. I wonder could a machine to rival the PK be birthed on US land instead?

The 30 carbine, AFAIK, is regarded to be underpowered, and slow, for rifle work, even with new postwar powder. But for the sake of proven commodity I could see M2s getting standard issued, though obviously it's going to suffer at range. Maybe big Army will adopt a GPMG fireteam centric doctrine?
My "dream" team is a 10 man squad divided into 2x 4 man fireteams, an SL and a grenadier.

On the subject of the BMG replacement, I will opine that had the US been more aware, or the Soviets being more obvious with it, that the Soviet Army is massively expanding on light armour like BTRs and MT-LBs, I suspect that 60cal will receive much more attention ITTL.

 

[tomo pauk]

I don't think that we'd see a 20mm BMG. The larger ammunition would be heavier, the projectiles slower. And arguably a violation of the 1868 St Petersburg Convention, though the US never signed that one.

The 20mm with HE shells were a reality before ww2, let alone after ww2.

 

[Scott Kenny]

@Scott Kenny the Italians made a box fed, select fire M-1 in the form of the BM-59, on a line of scraps of repurposed tooling. The M-14 diverging so much in mechanism should be intentional negligence borderline treason. That being said, ITTL, it will take over the role of a battle rifle instead, to arm snipers. (The M-14, IIRC, is not the best rifle to get an accurizing surgery, because of how the receiver and action is laid out). That being said I can't ever doubt the various American design houses and an in line stock, piston operated battle rifle is barely scratching the depth of their expertise.

Yes, the BM59 proves that you could make an M14 on Garand tooling.

If you have competent engineers.

I suspect that the Armory engineers were not.

Personally, I'd go for a developed out FG42 instead of the G3, FAL, or the M14.

Also, I like the T24. It should've been adopted ASAP, if not then inform direct postwar MG development. But we know BuOrd shunned all other alternatives for their brainchild the T60. For all we know they could've sabotaged the T24 IOTL as well. I wonder could a machine to rival the PK be birthed on US land instead?

I mean, the M60 only has one issue: you gotta replace the receiver every so often. Which you handle when Congress questions it by throwing the part you are replacing at the Congresscritters. A piece of stamped sheet metal weighing about 2lbs or less.

"Congressman, this is the part we are replacing. It is a known wear part, has been since the beginning. But by Federal Law, it is considered the registered part of the firearm. So by law we have to report the purchase as a new weapon. But what we are buying is a $10 piece of stamped sheet metal."

The 30 carbine, AFAIK, is regarded to be underpowered, and slow, for rifle work, even with new postwar powder. But for the sake of proven commodity I could see M2s getting standard issued, though obviously it's going to suffer at range. Maybe big Army will adopt a GPMG fireteam centric doctrine?
My "dream" team is a 10 man squad divided into 2x 4 man fireteams, an SL and a grenadier.

I'd argue that WW2 proved GPMP doctrine.

And yes, I suspect that the M2 Carbine will be used because it's there.

The challenge would be to get some kind of GPMG developed. I could see the M60 still happening but in .30-06. It'd be a little heavier than the original.

On the subject of the BMG replacement, I will opine that had the US been more aware, or the Soviets being more obvious with it, that the Soviet Army is massively expanding on light armour like BTRs and MT-LBs, I suspect that 60cal will receive much more attention ITTL.

Remember that the .60cal is the 20mm Vulcan case, not the 12.7x99 case.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The 20mm with HE shells were a reality before ww2, let alone after ww2.

For AA use. Not for infantry HMGs.

 

[tomo pauk]

Personally, I'd go for a developed out FG42 instead of the G3, FAL, or the M14.

Preach on, brother.

For AA use. Not for infantry HMGs.

The 20mm was used as a vehicular weapon, though. On the light tanks by Germany, Italy and Soviet union, on recon cars, and later on the APCs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The 20mm was used as a vehicular weapon, though. On the light tanks by Germany, Italy and Soviet union, on recon cars, and later on the APCs.

All of which had a coaxial MG to shoot at infantry.

 

[yeetmahboi]

@Scott Kenny, @tomo pauk, IIRC the US Army made the case that the explosive filler in the 20mm Hispano was more valuable than the counter armour quality of the 60cal. I believe key figures observed the lethality brought by shell firing MGs but the 50 BMG's overwhelming reputation shut down any alternatives. Had the Soviets proliferated the KPV more, as a dual purpose infantry gun, or tank and BTR and BRDM mounts, or the army getting runny feet over these threats, the 60cal could've seen resuscitating. Inclusion of explosive shells should be a prime consideration.

 

[tomo pauk]

All of which had a coaxial MG to shoot at infantry.

There was no ban on shooting them with HE.

 

[yeetmahboi]

There was no ban on shooting them with HE.

IIRC, Flak 38s were commonly used to pound ground targets, quite an effective tool at that with all the HE it could spit out.

 

[yeetmahboi]

I've been reading into this topic again and discovered that the Americans did, in fact, made a belt fed BAR in the form of the experimental T23 machine gun. Ironically enough it looks close enough to be call a MAG. And it was made when WW2 was still blazing hot!

Had a good eye sorted this out from the trash heaps, and handed this over to a bunch of competent engineers to improve, ruggedize and lighten this machine by a pound or two, whichever arsenal making this would be getting a real life leprechaun gold pot from exports and licensing.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I've been reading into this topic again and discovered that the Americans did, in fact, made a belt fed BAR in the form of the experimental T23 machine gun. Ironically enough it looks close enough to be call a MAG. And it was made when WW2 was still blazing hot!

Had a good eye sorted this out from the trash heaps, and handed this over to a bunch of competent engineers to improve, ruggedize and lighten this machine by a pound or two, whichever arsenal making this would be getting a real life leprechaun gold pot from exports and licensing.

Disagree, the BAR is a pain in the butt to field strip for cleaning. The difference between a field strip and a detail strip is pretty much whether you take the wood off or leave it attached.