how would it change WWII if we adopted a closed bolt colt monitor with a flash hider instead of the garand and BAR?it's only a few pounds heavier than a garand.
If you ever find yourself asking if small arms would change the outcome of a post industrial war the answer is no.
>>64633303obviously giving the victors an even better weapon would not change the fact that they won.
Go ask the Germans how their assault rifle worked out. Or their ballistic missile.Weapons don't win wars. Logistics do.
>>64633319ok? not really what i asked.
>>64633453>how would it change WWII if we adopted But you did.
>>64633298We would have effectively avoided future global stonerization and future generations crying about how heavy their rifles are. Oh, WW2? Not much. With the M1 Garand, Thompson, M3, and M1 Carbine, the U.S. was already equipped for an army 30 years into the future compared to everyone else. Minus the M1919 machine gun which kind of sucked ass compared to an MG42, but it still got the job done given how Americans can actually keep up with making them. The Amerians were very equipped for WW2. Even with bolt action rifles they still probably would have kicked everyones' asses
>>64633463refer to >>64633310germany didn't universally field assault rifles anyways.most guys had bolt actions, they were in the GPMG paradigm.
>>64633487Germany produced 500k StG44's. They didn't win a single battle with them.Weapons by themselves don't win anything. They don't change outcomes, they don't even win individual battles.
>>64633494they had almost 6 million military casualties.
Allow me to effort post:1/5 I like to think this would have changed literally everything about the war. Let's say that America had it from the jump and sort of surprised everyone that they had it. Wouldnt change much in the pacific initially, maybe a couple more planes would've been shot down at Pearl Harbour? the real change would be in the island hopping campaigns. Guadalcanal would be over a lot sooner. Most land battles would probably be shorter, the Japanese would not be able to match American firepower and would have to rastically change their tactics to be even more suicide charges. assuming changes in logistics an supply to match the rate of fire. I can see the Pacific campaign being over 6 months earlier.
>>646335362/5 Germans would be horrified to learn America had this kind of weapon and completely about face from attacking Russia. They would probably be more expeditious with their Eastern campaign and make more bold decisions. Not that this would change their strategy mind you, just an added pressure to make it to Baku quicker.
>>646335393/5 D-Day forwards would pretty much change at the same rate as the Pacific campaign. The hedges that slowed the allied advance would still be there and the Germans would still defend the best they could. The real question of change I think only really comes around the time Market Garden happens. Maybe Monty comes up with a better plan? Maybe the weapons involved can tip the edge? (Although given how...bold? The plan was, I doubt improved small arms can turn that one into a success)
>>646335424/5 If Market garden is still shit, then the next real challenge for the weapon is arnheim forest. Again, the siegfried line is a motherfucker but superior firepower should make a difference in the forest (especially when the Germans fall back to the hastily dug trenches on the last section of the line.
>>646335465/5 Battle of the bulge happens pretty much the same as it did, albeit more armour and vehicles involved.After that? It's all a matter of time before the war's over.
>>64633310Name one war, literally any war in history in which some feasibly-better small arms (no AK-47 in 1860) would have changed the outcome of a war
>>64633303Garand : You sure about that?
>>64633557Yes
>>64633547>>64633553ian mcollum and others like to trot out this line about how america could be using garands today and it wouldn't make a huge difference because "muh logistics".did everyone forget we were getting outgunned in vietnam because the m14 had 20 round mags and too much recoil?logistics only makes a difference if the stuff you supply is good.russia wouldn't need suicide waves if they had better guns.their casualties were so high in part because german arms were that much better.
>>64633566Yes that was the prime reason for Russian casualties on the eastern front, their small arms
>>64633570 There would be a lot less of them. Given how well they performed during Operation Uranus, I think better weapons would make a huge difference in soldier v soldier. Outgunning your enemy is one of the goals of war.
Bump for interesting discussion
>>64633298The US would:>have a worse standard service weapon>have a marginally better (arguably) SAW>likely have to pay more to manufacturers per weapon>likely receive less weapons overall due to manufacturing complexity>have much worse logistics due to the need for magazines>have a much higher stoppage rate due to the need for magazines>possibly move on to a small-bore, high velocity cartridge earlier to get away from this nightmareIt's essentially all of the issues of the M14, but worse because the advancements in metallurgy and engineering practices that convinced people that a magazine-fed standard service weapon was feasible was simply not there.
>>64633665Honestly I can't see any of these issues being too serious to affect the advantage of killing more of the enemy than they can kill you.
>>64633665More m1 carbines might get made than Garands or Thompsons but it should still be plausible to field these as a standard rifleman weapon
>>64633665the colt monitor is not worse than the garand.the impact on logistics is nonexistent as are reliability concerns.
>>64633680Let me emphasise then, the logistics and procurement situation would be VERY VERY VERY MUCH WORSE. The addition of detachable magazines of the BAR type alone means:>longer manufacturing times and greater material & financial costs >less shipping volume>greater weight per individual combat load>more combat stoppages due to magazine failures (hint: this means you cannot shoot)>combat losses take more equipment with them>resupply takes longer having to load magazines>supply trains can carry less per journey>training and load bearing equipment needs to change>more work for armourers>all levels of leadership have to factor the extra strain this will place on the logistics system into their plansAnd so on and so forth. I won't go into detail on the section vs section combat level implications, but whatever benefit you think adding a detachable box magazine and a giggle switch to every grunt has will not be as remotely useful as you expect.>>64633685M1 Carbines aren't suitable for general infantry use..>>64633723The Garand was developed over a long period of time with considerable direct input from the Army. It was a martial rifle made to spec from the get go. The Colt Monitor was not. And no, reliability and logistics concerns are not minimal at all. You have more things to make, more things to ship across the sea, more things for a man to carry, more things for a man to lose, and more things that matter when when a man loses them. Furthermore the problems of detachable box magazines from this period are well documented, magazines are the first point of failure in a weapon even to this day with modern manufacturing and metallurgy, and they absolutely were considerably worse back then; it's why we didn't want a magazine on what would become the Garand. Collector Grade Publications' book on the M14 details this in relation to the BAR during WWII and how that affected decision making post-war with the experimental Garands and the M14.
>>64633774>M1 Carbines aren't suitable for general infantry use..I meant that instead of Thompsons and Garands you could afford to use m1 carbines instead. Think of all the Thompsons you wouldn't have to make for NCO's and officers. They would just be given carbines, which are way cheaper than submachine guns. Hell, they could afford to give them M1903 Springfields and 1911's to compensate even further. Maybe that eases the logistics?
>>64633803Artillery, transport, field hospitals, airfields? ALL the backline troops could be given 1903's instead of Garands, Thompsons and Carbines.
>>64633851Now you can afford to make less Thompson magazines, less Garand clips, less carbine magazines, less .45, no .30 carbine, and more 30-06.
>>64633871Hell I'd splurge and give NCO's and Officers a +5 extended mag to make their sidearm more effective.
>open bolt on a main rifle
>>64633939>anon is illiterate
>would it change WWIINo, it would not. (As fp anon said, small arms don't matter in ground warfare. Artillery does)RE: World War II, it was logistics, mass manufacturing capacity and access to petroleum & mineral resources. That's what won the war, and were the crucial elements to do so.
>>64633298>it's only a few pounds heavier than a garand.And about 20x as expensive, difficult to operate, and unable accommodate accessories such as optics, rifle grenade launchers, and bayonets
>>64633298it wouldnt have mattered at all
>>64633303I think the last time the difference in guns majorly affected a campaign on the strategic level was the Boxer Rebellion where the Boxers and those who sided with them were stuck with ancient muskets while everyone else had either trapdoor or bolt-action rifles.
The US could have fought the war using Martini-Henrys and it wouldn't have changed much of anything
>How would the war be changed if this BAR was used instead of the other BARlmao
>>64634909another illiterate
>>64633553>no AK-47 in 1860An AK-47 in 1864
>>64634718>rifle grenade launchersFor the life of me I cant figure out how nobody keyed onto the idea of an old timey M79 or M320 but instead armies had their soldiers wrangle various adaptors onto ther rifles instead. Having a means of giving every squad the ability for easy indirect fire that doesnt involve calling up the chain for company level assets like mortars would be a greater boon than every man humping around a BAR imho
>>64633566>did everyone forget we were getting outgunned in vietnam because the m14 had 20 round mags and too much recoil?the US withdrew from Vietnam during a favorable ceasefire after having secured the border, and then declined to go back in when the North attacked again two years later.
>>64633298It would be really fucking cool, because maybe we would have had stockpiles of monitors from the CMP. Then again, maybe the garand would be the hotness.
>>64633553The Dreyse Needle gun won many wars for the Prussians before everybody else caught up. Or at least made victory a lot easier.
>>64633665>SCHV-schizo being schizo and hyperbolic as usual
