.276 Pedersen... a better alternative?

Off the top of my head: the SPIW program, Small Caliber Study, and oh yeah-- the fact that I've led people in combat. No clue who Marshall is. Everything I post regarding current developments comes from actual hands-on experience. Any historical/anecdotal info comes from actual research (ie, a real book/paper). I only comment on issues I know.

ADDED
Did I also mention I attended the ACR trials? I kept a few souvenirs. I also have a bunch of the Colt ACR duplex ammo and loaded mag for the G11.

 

From my understanding, a good deal of shots were 'blind fired' during the War...shooting at targets that could not be seen (to suppress the area) or simply just blind-firing from a protected area. I know the modern military uses a superior firepower (aka suppression) as has previously been discussed and I think the same could be said during WW2.

Which brings me back to my last post, about the '12 man equivalent to 15' point...even with the 'mineral wax' needed, if the US was using a 'suppressive firepower' type of infantry doctrine, wouldn't the .276 be the more feasible round (for previously stated reasons)?

 

Suppression was used but I still guarantee you not everyone fired. People who were shooters before joing the Army have a hard time "wasting ammo". Watch Youtube vids of troops fighting in 'stan and the sandbox. You will not find all of them shooting during an attack. The guys that ask "where's he at" haven't shot back yet.


Yes, the .276 would be a better choice (vs 30-06). You could put rounds downrange quicker thanks to less recoil.

 

We're not debating how many people would actually shoot their gun in combat though - you've got to imagine that they all would fire when some one called for 'supressive fire!' or if they were getting pinned down and need to return fire (blind fire) to try and stop the other guy shooting at them. Lets not get nitty-picky about who all was firing etc - theoretically, a squad could put more lead down range firing the .276 vs the .30 round which would in theory create more suppressive fire against an enemy, creating a larger likelihood of pinning him down, which as previously mentioned is when you'd call in the Air/Arty to finish him off.

 

No, I don't have to imagine anything since I've lived it. Go tell your theories to the troops in combat. In war you are short of everything but the enemy. Playing video games obscures reality. Arty can only fire so close to friendly troops. That's even if you're in range, the resupply helo was able to deliver more ammo, the battery wasn't attacked overnight resulting in damage to the barrels, etc. There's a reason why they call infantry the "Queen of Battle". They are the only ones that can alone guarantee success on the ground-- because they have to. Perhaps you've heard about a certain request for additional support made of our wonderful C-in-C? Is it for trucks? Tanks? X-boxes? No, troops!

 

U.S. First Army's operational reports assert the lack of visible targets inhibited firing. The relative scarcity of ammunition WWII infantryman could carry was also a limiting factor for firing rates. I found it somewhat ironic that marching fire was actually one of the most effective infantry tactics in WWII.

 

Don't talk down to me. Ever. Its called 'mutual respect', especially given how new you are to the forums. Does not make a good impression at all. I'm not even referring to video-games for starters but am going along with the discussion of this thread, and we're talking World War 2 here, not modern warfare, and your C-in-C comment is completely irrelevant to this topic.

So, back on topic.

Given the smaller rounds, larger clips, and ability to carry more ammo, would that increase the ability to use more suppressive fire, since more ammo was available to the everyday troop? (In theory, of course, since the round was never adopted during WWII and we'll never know for sure its effectiveness in combat etc). Getting more rounds down range at the enemy enabled maneuvers etc, so would the +3 rifles effect enable fewer men to suppress with more on the move to attack?

 

That is a good question "Musso". Another thing that should be kept in mind is that the .276 was a slightly lighter projectile (140-150 grains), traveling slightly slower (2,600 fps) than the .06. The M1 ball .06 was about 170 grains, and the M2 152 grains. Both traveled downrange at nearly 2.900 fps.

Are two extra lighter, slower projectiles an advantage or disadvantage in the fire discipline of WW2? Then if the answer to that is "yes", then does that "yes" offset the disadvantage of having another round size in the Quartermaster's depot which has to be kept track of.

Remember the similarity in appearance of the .276 and the standard M2 .06 round which would still be needed for sniper rifles, air and water cooled machine guns, and the BAR squad automatic rifles. A round for the "baby Garand" .30 carbine will never be mistaken for a full rifle round, where the .276 might be a confusing element in the supply logistics.

I also just wonder if the "economics" of standardized, available supply wasn't the deciding factor in this query. Perhaps it wasn't efficiency of application in the field, but efficiency in the supply logistics which was the deciding factor. Remember that Spencer and Henry repeating rifles and Gatling's guns were discouraged and denigerated as "wasteful" in our civil war by the ordinance department, and not adopted by the government officially for nearly the entire war.

 

No need to get high and mighty.

The issue of soldiers not firing has been a long standing challenge, and there are several good books on the subject. Since this is one of the topics I do in small unit tactics, I am always on the lookout for new materiel. That is why I wanted to know if you had any good finds.

 

Sorry about that. I thought you were accusing me of making stuff up. Were you ever part of the foreign military exchange with the US Army? If so, I can point you to .mil servers (you'll have to register).

 

Not part of the exchange, but I've had a few of your lads at the Winter warfare school in Dombås.

 

Yes the Italians were unique in using some machine guns that required lubricated cartridges in WW2. On a target range, required lubricating of cartridges is a dubious idea, on the battlefield, it is sheer stupidity. By world war 2, everyone had decades of experience with machine guns on battlefields and for any army to even consider such a design was madness. Especially where is the first place this weapon was used? the sandy dirty desert. The jams were sure to follow and jam they did, often to the point of locking up and requiring an armorer to fix. Assuming the enemy didnt easily overrun the Italian position and destroy the gun first.

 

I seem to recall that one or two of the Japanese automatic weapons required lubricated rounds as well. I'll have to do some more checking but I seem to recall that one which had a "hopper" on the top for refilling used lubricated cartridges.

Found the stuff, and the one with the "feed hopper" oiled the rounds as they went into the system.

That wasthe Type 11 LMG from Japan which was fitted with an integral oiler in the hopper. When entering the feed position, each cartridge trips the oiler valve, and a small amount of oil is then squirted on the cartridge just before it is fed into the chamber. The same was true with the Type 92, an integral oiler is built into the feed unit. Each cartridge in the strip passes below a brush built into the top feed cover. When the cartridge is drawn across the feed, it pushes the oiler valve and small amount of oil is squirted into the brush and then transferred to the cartridge before it reaches the feeding position.

However, unlike earlier Japanese machine guns, the Type 96 is not fitted with an internal oiler; instead, oilers are incorporated into the magazine loading tool, so I would surmise that meant that the rounds were oiled before they were put into the box magazines (?). If so that would mean they used oiled rounds on the battlefield.

Most of that is gleaned from:

http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg00-e.htm

 

After years of trying, I finally get the Military Channel. I happened to catch this episode the other night. You failed to mention and/or notice that he, Larry Vickers, helped design the "better" H&K upper! I'd hardly call his demonstration impartial, i.e., did he really fire 30rds only? If you feel TV shows are a reliable source, more power to you. If you live in the US, you have the opportunity to get an M4 clone and see for yourself. Nothing beats actual hands-on experience.

Larry is hitting on one point about the gas tube. It will heat up quickly. It is designed to get hotter and fail before the barrel will (I think this is what your friend experienced). Stoner implemented it as a safety feature to save barrels-- a gas tube is cheaper and quicker to replace than the barrel. It was a trade-off for a lighter weapon. Trying to use it as a squad LMG leads to problems. If you fire a sniper rifle beyond the recommended RPM, resulting in poor accuracy and damage to the barrel, did the mfg deliver a crappy weapon?

 

Brigadier General SLA Marshall S.L.A. Marshall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In recent years he has gotten the reputation of being a rank pulling bully who only collected information that would support his pre-made conclusions. My Dad met him in the early 1970's on a service call to his home (my Dad was a utility company service tech.) Dad found him to be a very pleasant gentleman. When the General found out my Dad was a fellow coin collector he offered him a quantity of European coinage from the WWII era including some Nazi coins.
I've read a few of his books & thought they were good reading in spite of any criticism.

 

Just my opinion…
While the 7.62 NATO round is an excellent cartridge is doesn’t offer much more over the .30-06 round than the ability to be used in a short action. Its ballistics are close enough to the .30-06 & the commercial .300 Savage as to be redundant. The Savage round was available in the 1920’s over 30 years before the 7.62 was adopted.
The .276 would have offered a shorter, lighter Garand w/ a 10 round capacity. The down side would have been the loss of effectiveness at ranges beyond 500 yds. & the logistics of introducing a new cartridge in the supply chain.
I don’t think the loss of effectiveness at extended ranges would have been a big an issue as thought. For one thing, the working pressure of the round was tailored around the Pederson rifles action. If the Army would have adopted the Garand in .276 The Pederson’s limitations could have been dropped & a higher working pressure used. The 7mm bullet was popular in the 1970’s & 80’s w/ bench-rest shooters due to the better ballistic coefficient & sectional density of that diameter. The Springfield Armory would have done research into improving the .276 by using a higher pressure & better bullet design which would have resulted in increasing its effect at ranges of >500 yds.
The second disadvantage, adding another cartridge into the supply chain did happen in 1940. The cal. .30 M1 Carbine was adopted. Shorter, lighter & less recoil than a .30-06 but w/ better effectiveness than the .30 Carbine round, a Garand in .276 may have negated the .30 carbine ever being considered.
Lastly, a modern loading of the .276 in a Eugene Stoner designed or other modern type rifle could have meant the .223 would have been known only as Remington’s improvement of the .222 for varmint hunters & not as a military round.
Again… just MY opinion.

 

Correct, at the time I didn't realize that's who he was referring to. We've since taken the chat private.

 

I'm not so sure about that. A full-size M1, regardless of caliber, was still too big/heavy for some applications. You'll never have a rifle that can replace the pistol, SMG, and carbine.
Alex