WesWorld

The US Army

A couple notes on how I'm developing the WW US Army.

1 - Since the US Army did not participate in the Great War, it did not adopt French guns and bore sizes during the period, nor did it produce large numbers of FT-17 tanks. The US will remain on the inch standard for bore sizes, so rather than a 75 or 76mm howitzer or gun, you'll see a 3" howitzer or gun, instead of a 60mm mortar, you'll see a 2.2" mortar, etc. This is mostly a flavor effect, the results at the target won't be much different.

2 - With the US Army not gearing up for the Great War, there is not a mountain of .30-06 ammunition available for use. This helps lead to #3....

3 - In February, 1933, a year after the procurement of semi-auto rifles in .276 Pedersen (the 7 x 51mm Pedersen cartridge tested in the German cartridge trials of 1931) was put on hold while development of a .30-06 version of the same rifle was worked on, US Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur reversed his decision and put the M1 Garand in .276 Pedersen forward as the Army's new rifle, to replace the M1903 and M1903A1 Springfield. Tooling and manufacturing efforts will delay introduction into 1935, but the US Army will start replacing bolt-action Springfields with semi-auto Garands beginning in the spring of 1935.

4 - The US Army began looking into tanks seriously again in the early 1930s, purchasing a number of Christie designs and beginning low-rate production of the M2 light tank for the infantry in 1933. By the summer of 1935, it's in small-scale service in 3 models (the M2A1, M2A2, and the latest M2A4). Medium tanks are under development, but none have been accepted for service yet.

on #1 & 2 : Makes sense. The US did not gain the Phillipines, or participate in WW1. Wasn't the M1911 developed to replace the 0.38 revolver due to the Filipinos? So does the M1911 exist, and for that matter the Thompson and BAR (WW1) ? I believe all those were related to wartime issues.

on #3. Well I don't actually expect a sale, but it's my mercantile duty, and would help bring program costs down further, to offer the US the option of purchasing the Lt-33 and Lt-35 tanks.

edited to remove an error.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
on #1 & 2 : Makes sense. Given WW history, other than the Indian Wars, the US hasn't done battle since the Civil War, correct? Does the M1911 exist, and for that matter the Thompson and BAR? I believe all those were related to wartime issues.

on #3. Well I don't actually expect a sale, but it's my mercantile duty, and would help bring program costs down further, to offer the US the option of purchasing the Lt-33 and Lt-35 tanks.

Very good points in regard to small arms. IMO the M1911 should make it, their design being a result of the concern of the perceived lack of stopping power of the .38 round during the Filipino insurrection. IIRC a shorter version was fight here in WW so maybe that lessons were learned by the US Army.

On the other hand with no US presence in the war the possibility exist indeed that no Thompsons and BAR exist. Of course mention of them being used by other armed forces already (IIRC Argentina have some Thompsons and Poland have their local production of their licensed copy of the BAR) force the issue in regard of them being in service as a yes.

Sure the Thompson exists (I mentioned the weapon a long time before the US got a player and before it was determined that the US did not participate in the Great War), though I'm not sure if the WW US Army has started to use the weapon (which seems likely to me as MacArthur has seen it in action during the Filipino mess) and if they do which version they are using.

http://88.198.26.117/kunden/oponn/wbblit…25326#post25326

MacArthur on the Thompson SMG:

Wednesday March 20, 1929

Quoted

Observing the action on various locations, Major General Douglas MacArthur was quite impressed by the performance of the American built Thompson submachinegun.
"I had heard rumors of Thompsons being used by the Japanese armed forces, despite the attempts of our government to block the sale of these weapons to Japan," MacArthur told AWNR in an exclusive interview. "This is the first time I actually see it and they were well used. Having seen it, I can't believe why the US Army is so slow to accept the weapon. I mean the Coast Guard, the Navy, and the Marines use the Thompson. Hell, even gangsters use them to shoot each other to pieces! Last month's mob massacre on Valentine's day is a good example."
Asked why he and his observer group were here, MacArthur replied: "This is a good opportunity to share our ideas on warfare with and give advice to our Filipino friends, and vice versa. Also we got to see the Thompson in actual combat. Unfortunately we have yet to get a glimpse of the new Japanese Arisaka Type 88 sniper rifle which 'the reporter bimbo is supposed to be using around here'..."
(Yayoko: ACHOOO!!!)
"... or at least that was how a Japanese officer told me that... (looked to me that he was not a fan of her)"

I believe that this bit existed before we determined that the US did not get involved in the Great War...

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
on #1 & 2 : Makes sense. The US did not gain the Phillipines, or participate in WW1. Wasn't the M1911 developed to replace the 0.38 revolver due to the Filipinos? So does the M1911 exist, and for that matter the Thompson and BAR (WW1) ? I believe all those were related to wartime issues.

The M1911 wasn't a wartime development; rather it was made in competition to and as a result of the development of the pre-war first-gen auto-loaders that had begun to be adopted by the European powers. Formal adoption was 3 years prior to the beginning of WWI.

Since a few of the final battles in the 'Indian Wars' took place in the late 1870's-1890 (Wounded Knee), one could conceivably say that the M1911 was an outgrowth of 1.) Browning's semi-auto experimentations, 2.) the US Army's love of the giant .45 Long Colt round and 3.) the pressures of adopting a weapon more powerful than the Mauser and Luger pistols appearing in Europe in the early 1900's.

The M1911 would exist, it's an outgrowth of the time the US spent in the Phillipines (as regards the cartridge) and the desire to replace the revolvers (for the pistol itself). The US didn't KEEP the Philiipines here, but they take the islands from the Iberians.

The Thompson, historically, was not used by the US Army at this period, but it was developed as a private venture so it would exist (and would have been popular during the shorter WW Prohibition period). At this point in time, the US Mail uses some, as does the Federal Reserve Bank system (along with a number of other law enforcement organizations).

The BAR would be developed somewhat more slowly, since the US wasn't going into the war, probably only being standardized in 1922 or so as the M1922. It's based on the concepts of use behind the Hotchkiss M1909 (which would have been adopted by the US, it's adoption in 1909 having nothing to do with the Great War) and the Chauchat (which the US would not have adopted).

A quick listing of the guns of the US Army.

US Army Artillery weapons - 1935

Howitzers
3" horse cavalry howitzer
3" field howitzer
4" field howitzer
6" heavy howitzer
8" heavy howitzer

Field guns
3" field gun
4" field gun
6" field gun

AT guns
1.5" AT gun (being adopted)

AA guns
1.5" AA gun
3" AA gun

Mortars
2.2" mortar
3.2" mortar
4.2" mortar

A quick listing of US Army infantry weapons and their calibers.

US Army infantry weapons - 1935

Rifles
M1903 Springfield - .30-06
M1 Garand - .276 Pedersen


Pistols
M1911 - .45


Automatic Rifles
M1922 Browning Automatic Rifle - .30-06


Machineguns
M1919 Browning Machinegun - .30-06 (water-cooled and air-cooled versions)


Heavy Machineguns
M2 Browning Machine Gun - .50 Browning (water-cooled and air-cooled versions)


Anti-Tank Rifles
None (T1E1 under test, in .60 caliber)


Submachineguns
None

Hmm, I guess if the US didn't enter the Great War there'd be no m1917. Too bad, the 1917 was a good rifle.

No Sergeant York, either...

Nope, no Enfields. A large number of rifles were likely made for British (and possibly other) service, but as commercial contracts and not for the US Army.

Nope, no Sergeant York, no Belleau Wood, etc.

Going with both the .276 and .30-'06 is going to hurt the US in the long run, though. Means that GI's can't steal ammo as they start to run out. With ammo commonality, you could take rounds from the M1917 for the Grand, and since the M1917 had cloth belts, you could also do the reverse, slipping rifle rounds into used belts to fire them through the machine gun.

I'd wager the machine guns will be switched over as well before long. The .276 Petersen is, from everything I've heard, a superb little round, pretty similar to the .308 NATO. Certainly it won't hurt the US to switch over to a .276 squad machinegun - I'd bet the BAR could take the switch with a minimum of retooling.

Further, the US doesn't have a massive stockpile of ought-six left over from the World War. I'd be surprised if the US doesn't have a .276-chambered Squad automatic by 1940, under these conditions.

In some circumstances, it might be a problem. In others, the better accuracy the average shooter will be able to get with the lighter round will help.

Historically, it's not much of a problem IF you have a good supply system. The US had a similar situation in Vietnam: for much of the war, the MGs were chambered in 7.62 x 51mm NATO, while the rifles were mostly 5.56 x 45.


The .276 Pedersen is a good deal less powerful than the .308, muzzle velocity is about 350 feet per second lower with bullets of similar weight. Right now, the WW US Army isn't planning a .276 SAW, the BAR's additional range and power is regarded as useful.

Minor edit to the Artillery list: the 3" pack howitzer was removed as in 1935 the US has not developed that weapon (no reason to have done so, there are no mountain divisions nor are there any paratroops).

The argument that the rifle squad should be equipped with a single caliber, and that the riflemen and the squad automatic weapon should be able to exchange ammunition is one that was DEFINITELY an issue at this time period, and one reason the ZB-26/Bren and weapons like it were popular. In US service, it's made a little trickier, since the riflemen can only steal from the BAR or the machinegun if they've retained an empty en bloc clip (since you can't load a Garand without one).

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf HakonsonIn US service, it's made a little trickier, since the riflemen can only steal from the BAR or the machinegun if they've retained an empty en bloc clip (since you can't load a Garand without one).

As Sam Elliott said when playing SMG Basil L. Plumley in "We Were Soldiers": "By the time I need one, there'll be plenty of them lying around."

Quoted

Originally posted by Carthaginian

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf HakonsonIn US service, it's made a little trickier, since the riflemen can only steal from the BAR or the machinegun if they've retained an empty en bloc clip (since you can't load a Garand without one).

As Sam Elliott said when playing SMG Basil L. Plumley in "We Were Soldiers": "By the time I need one, there'll be plenty of them lying around."

Depends on whether you've been defending a position, or retreating (or attacking). It's a good line, it's just not necessarily true.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by Carthaginian

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf HakonsonIn US service, it's made a little trickier, since the riflemen can only steal from the BAR or the machinegun if they've retained an empty en bloc clip (since you can't load a Garand without one).

As Sam Elliott said when playing SMG Basil L. Plumley in "We Were Soldiers": "By the time I need one, there'll be plenty of them lying around."

Depends on whether you've been defending a position, or retreating (or attacking). It's a good line, it's just not necessarily true.

Meh... guess so, but I can tell you that even as a SAW gunner, I always kept a spare 30 round mag on me SOMEWHERE 'in case the excrement hit the airflow regulator' as my Drills would say. I'd imagine that a grunt would realize that those clips were a handy thing to have in their gear in a tight and carry a couple.

Of course, Murphy's Law of Combat # 54 dictates that they would be in the part of your kit that fell farthest from you when you dropped your kit as the fight started.

Exactly. It's a good idea, but......


LIke I said, right now the WW US is not planning on changing the BAR, or even less likely the tripod-mounted M1917s, over to .276. It will be like the situation when the M-60 was the SAW and the M-16 was the standard-issue rifle, no interchangeability between the weapons. Once the stockpile of .30-06 is burned up..... we'll see.

Is the US Army going to develop the Johnson Light Machine gun (clip fed)? It was an interesting private venture, that was well liked by the troops, particularly the Marines who got a chance to use it I think before and during field testing in WW2.

I remember reading that it was regarded as light, handy (although it's side mounted magazine could be a bit awkward in some circumstances) and very accurate. The Marines requested more of them as a section weapon, of course the US Ordance Board promptly refused. Even though the LMG had a very good testimonial "Pound for Pound, this is the best weapon we've seen." according to the US Marines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Machi…1_Johnson_3.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Machi…1_Johnson_1.jpg