What If: World War II SHTF automatic carbines/rifles

[Shortround6]

We do also have to remember that it was discovered in World War II (and even World War I) that most combat (something like 90%) happened at ranges of at max 400 yards or meters, often less.

It was found that about 50% of rifle use was under 200 meters and 98% of rifle use was under 400 meters.
However.
Just about 50% of machinegun use was over 400meters.

So we have problem with with using one cartridge for both jobs.

You don't need like a .308 Win/7.62mm NATO, .30-06, .303 British, 8mm Mauser, 7.62x54mmR, 7.7mm Arisaka, or even rounds like 6.5mm Carcano or 6.5mm Arisaka for those ranges.

You are correct. However see above. What cartridge do you need for machinegun use at 600-800 meters?

Then we can get into the two different main theories of how the squad should operate. And there was some spread between the two.
Germans believed before the the war that the main firepower of the squad was the machinegun (MG 34). The riflemen in the squad were supposed to carry ammo, protect the gun at close range from being flanked and/or provide enough cover fire while the MG moved/relocated. This was also supposed to be coordinated with the neighboring squads. All squads in the platoon were not supposed to move at once as a general rule.

Americans were the opposite, they believed that the squads fire power came from precision rifle fire. The BAR was to support the squad's riflemen.
Most everybody else was in-between. British were a lot closer to the Germans than to the Americans but the British did have the best bolt action rifle of the war.

War also changed drastically between 1939 and 1944/45. The British army went from about 40 radios per division to around 1000 radios (?). Artillery support got a lot stronger and a lot quicker and that meant that the squads, even if they had higher rate of fire guns, didn't fight at longer ranges anymore. Their attached forward artillery observers simply called in artillery fire on targets that were any real distance away.
US was following that path, nobody else had the radios.

Germans were chasing the new shiny toys. Using 8-12 men to move/support one MG 34/42 was a bit wasteful and the M 98 was not that good a close range weapon. They had run into some Soviet semi-automatics and wanted some of their own. They managed to screw this up royally and by the time they had tooled up for the G 43 and were making it in quantity, they had changed their minds and went for the assault rifle, and then they changed their minds again and instead of building the assault rifle they had they spent time coming up with StG 45. Whatever we may think of the concept of that rifle, changing the production lines over in the spring/summer of 1945, had the Germans lasted that long, was not going to make any difference at all.
Also shows the difference between guns intended for urban fighting and guns needed for open area fighting (large wheat fields, plains, deserts).

I have mentioned it before in other threads. The British, in the battalion, started the war with two(2) 3 in mortars (and not very good ones) per battalion. After the BoF they changed to 6 mortars per battalion. The duties of the 'riflemen' were changing and the expectation's of the riflemen to engage in long range fire were decreasing.

Now the advantage or disadvantage of using the same cartridge for both the rifle and the MG can be argued and it has gone back and forth since WW II the full power MG being shifted to company level and then back to squad level at different times and in different armies. It also tends to change depending on where an army was fighting.

Ammo supply and consumption has also undergone a lot of thought/consideration/theorizing. If you ever get the chance see a few chapters written by Melvin Johnson (Semi-auto rifle and MG designer) arguing for the adoption of the semi-automatic rifle against the officers who thought the riflemen would exhaust their ammo too quickly and so the army should stick with bolt action rifles. Conservatism was not confined to the horse cavalry

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Squads in major powers (aside from the British Army currently) don't make wide use 7.62mm GPMGs. Most countries, though use GPMGs at at least the Platoon level, which is the next field unit size up above a squad. And even in Vietnam or let alone since, I'd argue that a SAW and a squad's rifles sharing ammo is not a big deal, because, simply, soldiers reloading mags from a SAW's belts isn't something that happens in a SHTF situation. Again, that's where combined arms comes in (though in World War II the modern iteration was brand new).

Not to mention that it was found that a 7 man squad with M16s outgunned an 11 man squad with M14s in US Army testing before Vietnam.

And yes, in the current set up that was being looked at with NGSW is that the XM7 and the XM250 would share the same ammo. But while the XM250 is being looked at as a lightweight heavier caliber machine gun (when rebarreled to 7.62mm NATO), the XM7 rifle is widely looked at as being as big a failure as the M14 was when SHTF in Vietnam. Too long, too heavy, too over powered, too much recoil, too little ammo to be carried for the weight, which is also why the XM7 is now going to be issued alongside M4s in spearpoint/breakout units.

IMO, the issue is that in Europe or the Pacific (as shown in Ukraine now) most combat wasn't open field. The ranges were a lot closer most of the time unless you were a machine gunner or sniper. Of course, things like BARs weren't good SAWs--the original BAR was issued as more or less an individual weapon much like the SMG was during the war--not the most commonly issued weapon, but not a specialist weapon, either. The Bren was much better in that regard (though from an old--as in published in World War II itself--book, British troops were trained if need be to use Brens as individual weapons if required).

It has been argued (mostly by Ian from Forgotten Weapons) that the M38 Carcano was the best infantry bolt action rifle of World War II, since it did fired a sort of intermediate round (7.35x52mm Carcano--similar ballistically to .30-30 or .30 Remington) and simple sights (though the Finns who got them during the war hated them for the sights and on-standard and often indifferent ammo quality).

You'd think that in North Africa that long ranged rounds from rifles would be desirable, but where did Italy fight mostly prior to the summer of 1943? North Africa, though by that point most of the M38's production reverted back to the more common 6.5x52mm Carcano round. Though Italy also ran medium MGs in 8x59mm Breda, which was more powerful than 8mm Mauser and maybe even more so than .30-06. But don't get me started on how convoluted Italian logistics were for most of World War II.

Of course, in Mali French troops were engaging and taking down bad guys with HK416s with 14.5" and maybe even 11" barrels with lethal effect out to ranges of 600 meters/650+ yards. But that's with one hell of a 5.56mm rifle (a lot of stuff that HK, FN, Sig in Switzerland, CZ and Beretta now is either basically god-teir or way above average, ie, common Colt/FN/US Army spec M16s or M4s, or Russian-made AKs--and yes, the AK-12 isn't a huge improvement over the AK-74M in Ukraine).

But that again is racing ahead of World War II, with 80+ years of know-how in weapons and ammo design and technical packages, as well as sights and other equipment gained over that time. SCHV ammo as a concept didn't really crop up until near the very end of the Korean War.

Maybe I should, given the limitations likely inherent with that era's tech, when it comes at least to ammo, maybe say that the "assault rifle" or select fire/auto-loading carbine probably should complement the rifle as something better than a SMG, pistol or even a M1 Carbine like PDW (M1/M2 Carbine was basically under-powered except for CQB), but won't (yet) fully replace full power bolt action or semi-auto rifles.

In short, better than a M1 Carbine, but isn't really one size fits all. And I do understand that mentality, but if you go too far the other way, you'll end up with something like the M14.

 

[Shortround6]

I'd argue that a SAW and a squad's rifles sharing ammo is not a big deal, because, simply, soldiers reloading mags from a SAW's belts isn't something that happens in a SHTF situation.

For the British in WW II it was the other way round. Riflemen could use their ammo to refill Bren magazines. Not for very long.

Not to mention that it was found that a 7 man squad with M16s outgunned an 11 man squad with M14s in US Army testing before Vietnam

I would like to see that study

A big problem with some of these studies is the parameters and the skill of the participants. Which can vary widely.
I Knew (in the 70s) the best National Guard Rifle team in the US. Both using M 14s and M 16s. The M-16s were easier to shoot, no question. And it didn't take long for competitive shooters to learn tricks. The 500yd prone scores feel off a little but not much. But that is not combat shooting.
Since most soldiers are not very good shots a lot the theories don't stand up.
The AR was a better combat rifle for just about all soldiers over the M-14 (which was a lousy battle rifle) but that is not what we are talking about.

The "theories" changed a lot during WW II. But part of the problem was that the post war decision makers (colonels and generals) were usually captains and majors before the war and still believed the pre-war doctrine/theories.

I do have a few differences with Ian on the M38 Carcano. The cartridge may have been the best comprise, the rifle may have been OK, the sights sucked. Which tends to trash the entire unit.
See this thread so we don't keep going over the same stuff.

Carcano rifle

When evaluating military weapons, or other things, a number of factors com into play. Even for things like rifles they actually have to viewed as a "weapons system" even though a simple one. The Carcano was a well built rifle that is-- good forgings, well machined, good finish (for the most...

ww2aircraft.net

But as quick excerpt.

Little pointy sights are hard to see in bad light. Inverted V back sights are hard to use in bad light.
Putting even a two position rear sight is not that big a deal. If your troops cannot handle a two position back sight maybe you shouldn't be drafting 5th graders from slow class.

Now the Germans and Soviets tended to issue at times (different times) a few semi autos to each squad platoon to beef up the firepower over the standard issue MGs. (US tended to issue extra BARs, US precision marksmanship was not what it was cracked up to be).

In WW I submachine guns tended to be crew served weapons, Crew of two-three men, one with the submachine gun and 1-2 men carrying spare magazines and extra grenades and a personnel weapon. This was fairly effective in trenches.

The other problem with comparing WW II and modern armies is that while the British were the first 'motorized' army. That simply meant there were no horses. The Infantry walked/marched. As did every other army in the world. Which means that the ammo was carried partially on each soldier and partially on an ammo truck with distribution just before the anticipated battle (how well that worked in the quick advances of the BoF and North Africa can be left to the imagination.) Modern armies expect shorter times between resupply on average.

The 30-06 was too heavy and too powerful. Although it was pretty good at turning cover into concealment. But that is what they had 81mm mortars and 105 howitzers for

Some of these modern weapons like the M7 seem a little too tricky. Worry about hitting, then worry about penetrating body armor.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Though it's off topic, what does the .277 Fury do that 7.62mm NATO AP won't? Level 3 armor is supposed to stop repeated hits from 7.62mm ball, not AP. And Level 4 is only guaranteed to stop one (one!) hit from .30-06 AP. After that, you're at the mercy of what the ceramic bits want to offer up (Level 4 steel armor is prohibitively heavy for personal use). Also, arms and legs have major veins and blood vessels in them that if they do get hit, you're screwed without prompt medical attention. Let alone head shots (not a 100% instant kill, but usually is as far as both trauma/blood loss, let alone CNS damage to the brain or cervical spine).

But as far as sights, obviously in today's world everyone and their brother uses optics (ranging from simple red dots to LPVO scopes that World War II snipers could only dream of), and use iron sights as back up sights or for CQB. Even HK's iron sights that they sell for most rifles are sort of target grade, aside from not having range settings (HK standard iron sights have all adjustments on the rear for windage and elevation, the front is a simple fixed post). Even the HK416F's FN SCAR type rear sight has no range notations. It seems the deal there is just zero the sights for whatever range you're shooting at, and leave them alone. If the range is shorter or longer than your "ideal" or set zero, use hold overs like you would with an optic (at least that's how that deal was explained to me from someone who is a German Army officer and firearms instructor).

Granted, unless you were a sniper (or a designated marksman in Germany), optics were virtually unheard of in World War II (though some countries worked on early night vision sights and such).

But a lot of that isn't here or there, really. I was looking mostly at production and how far corners could be cut and still have a "reasonable" self loading or even select fire carbine. Main reasonable thing is that the gun won't blow up in the user's face, and provide reasonable combat performance. Not match accuracy, not great fit and finish, nothing like peace time or even modern levels of such items. But simple, no frills production and use, and decent performance, in this instance to or near "last ditch" levels.

And what production method would be best? Stampings and such were common for SMGs and would become common for assault rifles down the road (the StG 44 and StG 45 were heavily made out of stampings), and there were also castings and such. The Type 99 "Navy Special" last ditch Arisaka rifle did use a mostly cast iron receiver. But it was provided with a forged steel slug in the front of the receiver casting that formed a barrel extension and where the bolt lugs locked up. This, of course, is similar to an AR-10/AR-15 aluminum upper with a steel barrel extension or an AK or AR-18 or SA80 with their stamped receivers with a steel trunnion riveted or welded in place.

 

[Shortround6]

In the Post War there was a lot of effort put into small rounds and the guns to shoot them in both the west and the east. The efforts in the west were torpedoed buy the US with the 7.62 X 51 and since the US was paying for a lot of the weapons and ammo and would be the supply point for NATO incase the SHTF everybody caved into the US.
The US found that with newer powders they could get the same ballistics in a smaller case than the .30-06, but a slightly smaller rifle just means it is going to kick more
Then the US stabbed all their NATO allies in the back by unilaterally adopting the 5.56. Which then spawned a host of 5.56mm machine guns/squad automatics (belt and/or magazine feeds) most of which were not adopted.
Turned out the 5.56 could not do a lot of the things they wanted a machine gun to do. The little bullets could not carry enough tracer material to give a good trace out much past 300-400 meters. It wasn't as destructive to material at long ranges, It could not penetrate barriers as well. But this tell us very little about how well a roughly 6.5mm bullet of a little over twice the weight of the 5.56 would do vs a 7.5-8mm full power rifle load. Not as good as the full power round but a lot better than the 5.56 and perhaps 80-90% as effective for a smaller/lighter weapon was perfectly acceptable.

Some of the Military requirements were sometimes rather silly. The British .280 cartridge was turned down, in part but not just, because it would not go through both sides of a helmet at 1600meters(?). Now perhaps this had some sort of relevance in 1917 but in the late 40s or early 50s the days of 1600meter machine gun barrages were long over. Mortars and artillery and taken over from long range machine gun fire (which needed special sights, special mounts and special preparation like platforms, lots of sandbags, etc in addition to ammo and spare barrels).

But a lot of that isn't here or there, really. I was looking mostly at production and how far corners could be cut and still have a "reasonable" self loading or even select fire carbine. Main reasonable thing is that the gun won't blow up in the user's face, and provide reasonable combat performance. Not match accuracy, not great fit and finish, nothing like peace time or even modern levels of such items. But simple, no frills production and use, and decent performance, in this instance to or near "last ditch" levels.

And what production method would be best? Stampings and such were common for SMGs and would become common for assault rifles down the road (the StG 44 and StG 45 were heavily made out of stampings), and there were also castings and such. The Type 99 "Navy Special" last ditch Arisaka rifle did use a mostly cast iron receiver. But it was provided with a forged steel slug in the front of the receiver casting that formed a barrel extension and where the bolt lugs locked up. This, of course, is similar to an AR-10/AR-15 aluminum upper with a steel barrel extension or an AK or AR-18 or SA80 with their stamped receivers with a steel trunnion riveted or welded in place.

The US and British cheapened up some of their rifles a bit with stamped sheet metal barrel bands, trigger guards, cheaper sights and even going to two grove rifling at times.
British accepted a large variety of different wood for stocks.
But you are looking for even more savings.
Not all countries had the same ability to make things and some shops can stamp out a submachine gun receiver but not a machinegun receiver.
Using powerful cartridges and blow back means heavy guns. The less powerful you make the cartridge the lighter you can make the gun. Going to lock breech is more expensive but you can make the gun lighter.
Making cheap guns may make sense if the front line is only a few hundred kilometers from the factory. For the US where the front lines could be 10,000km form the factory building cheap, disposable guns may not work so well when you take shipping into account. Granted some soldiers could break anvils.

Different armies had different standards and even manual of arms. French bolt action rifles had no safeties. It was either loaded or not loaded. When they were importing them after 1968 the importers had to figure out how to add some sort of sheet metal lever that would block the trigger from firing the rifle, just enough to satisfy the government inspector.
This might never have passed a military inspector or design staff.

Dealing with rifle/carbine rounds that are several times more powerful than pistol ammo calls for different standards. The Short German 7.9mm and the Soviet 7.62 X 39mm generate about 4 times the power of a 9mm and they use a lot more powder to do it.

Some of this also needs looking at existing arms factories and equipment and what is needed for new production. Traditional arms factories were used to forging and machining.
If they stamped much of anything it was small parts (levers?) or magazines and/or the contracted it out. There were no large hydraulic presses in the factory.
In the US the M3 Grease guns were first made by a division of GM that made headlights. This was in pre sealed beam days so both the reflectors and outside shell were made from stampings. These guys were also used to making things for several different GM car makers and changing the styles (stamping dies) fairly often.
I do have my doubts about small shops/garages making submachine guns in quantity. I have no doubts about many shops making one or two parts under subcontract to be assembled someplace else. Again, different countries had rather different industrial capacity/experience. I am from the states in the US called New England, and that area had turned to manufacture in the mid 1800s and machines/machinery was rather common. Connecticut was home to more gun factories in the US than the rest of the country put together. It was also home to many companies making machine tools and with small companies going in and out of business, old semi-obsolete machinery tended to drift to small shops and barns/sheds. Some were for hobbies and some were used to make things as needed, many of them were used a lot more extensively during WW II.
My grandfather during WW II actually worked in a 4 man shop on the coast of Maine using machinery that ran on overhead belts to make parts for gyroscopes for Norden under subcontract. There were a bunch of small lathes, milling machines, shapers and the like spread out through the area/surrounding towns. But the ability to make stampings like the MP 44 used??? They had shoe factories and sardine canning plants. They could bend sheet metal in one direction at a time.
Other places in the country could do different things but mass produced stamped sheet metal guns needs a different 'plant/machinery' than normal gun making.
And it many need different plant/machinery than small metal stamping factories. In the 1970s I worked for several years for an alarm company and went into a lot of old Connecticut factories, some that made things like lipstick tubes back when they were metal and not plastic, Tableware (forks, spoons) and other 'stamped' goods. Maybe some of them could have been converted to make submachine guns, maybe some of them could not. You need both size and power for your stampings, maybe not car fender size but bigger than cosmetic tubes, razor blades or even lunch boxes.

With war time production you can order machines to do what you want and do it economically. This is different than peace time production where sometimes you have to figure in the cost of the tooling over the desired numbers of the production run. This also changed with time.
Stamped sheet metal can be a lot cheaper, but you have to be building large numbers of parts to pay for the machinery and the stamping dies.
It can be done but not if you are short of large industrial machinery to begin with.

And the more complicated the stamping the better engineers you need to figure out the changes in dimensions as the flat metal changes/stretches as it is bent. That or you need a lot of trial and error

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Maybe as a cautionary tale, one should look at the whole SA 80 saga, though that came about decades after World War II. But overall, it was a deal of where several things either went wrong or had happened that were undesirable. When the EM-2 program collapsed, RSAF Enfield lost most of their design staff (most retired or went to work eleswhere) due to Royal Ordinance deciding to license production of the L1A1 rifle (FN FAL) and the L7 series GPMGs (FN MAG 58).

Come the late 1960s, the British Army wanted an intermediate caliber assault rifle that was cheaper and handier than the FAL. So Enfield ultimately took (this is an oversimplification) the AR-18 and put it into a bullpup shell--and did it badly (pretty simple fact that you can write a book about--and someone did, called The Last Enfield). The design wasn't bad itself (aside from being a rightly only bullpup), but it was badly implemented by a revolving door design team, many of whom had little firearms experience (remember what was said about Enfield's design team being gutted...), and after a whole, ultimately decades long affair, H&K was brought in to fix the SA 80, and got the former RSAF Nottingham plant as severance (HK was bought by BAE Systems, formed from the merger of Royal Ordinance and British Aerospace, in 1992 and was majority owned by them until 2001).

It does maybe also bear mentioning that the FAL and the MAG were very heavily machined to almost fine tolerances (something that sort of bit FN in the ass due to HK undercutting the FAL with the G3 and Rheinmetall doing the same with the MG3 aka MG42/59 vs the MAG--FAL and MAG were heavily machined, the G3 and MG3 were made heavily out of stampings and were cheaper). And the SA 80 was mostly stamped with a different operating system vs the FAL.

Or also the Chauchat. That took a reasonable for the time system (the long recoil system from the Remington Model 8 hunting and target rifle), and put it into a machine gun, which was cheaply and crudely made chiefly by a former bicycle plant during World War I.

Big thing there is that stuff can be made, but only decently well when it can be built and designed properly.

 

[Shortround6]

The Chauchat is also a cautionary tale. I will accept that the French versions did what was asked of them (I never fired or examined one) at least for a decent time considering their cost. Using the more powerful American 30-06 may have asked too much.
The real problem may have been with actually use. It is not enough merely to go bang when the trigger is pressed. The idea is to put the bullets at least somewhere near the target.
the weight of of moving parts of the Chauchat meant it was very hard to keep even near the target as everything bounced back and forth. The operating system may have worked but it was not a user friendly gun. It may have jammed when it got hot and started to fire again when it cooled (poor tolerance?) as the sheet metal jacket expanded/cooled different than the barrel and full length barrel jackets over a barrel that has to recoil/move around 70mm each shot also means the problems from dents and bends in the sheet metal can affect the service user much more than test firing.
Designers in the late 30s or very early 40s were often trying to avoid patents and some of the alternatives didn't do what the needed. A number of inventors, including Garand, didn't like the idea of drilling a hole in the side of the barrel to tap the gas from. They wanted to trap the gas in an area between the actual muzzle and and cap/cover and used this pressure to operate the mechanism. Both Mauser and Walther did this on their G 41 rifles, which slowed down development/mass production by as much as two years. Not sure if they were trying to avoid Browning patents or were just trying to prove they were smarter.
You can get away with a lot of things in low powered weapons or with weapons that don't rely on the force of the exploding cartridge to operate them. If the shooter has to use a little more force on the bolt, lever, pump handle on one shot than another then no big deal. Semi-auto is some what more difficult. Full auto is both simpler and harder. You have a lot less time for everything to happen.
This is another reason why submachine guns are easier, the Bolt doesn't have to move as far. Granted a lot of SMGs fire faster than full sized machineguns but sometime the full sized mg's bolt as to move almost 3 times further for each shot.

It can be done and it was done. It is just not easy. And much like a low grade car was possible in 1939-40, they were much different than even a low grade car of the late 60s.