American small arms cartridges during WWII; why so little change?

[Markus Becker]

On 6/26/2024 at 11:32 PM, R011 said:

In the 1930s, the US Army was not much interested in SMGs at all and had no budget to develop them anyway.  

The other way around. The US started buying way overpriced Thompsons before 1927. Had they looked into alternatives, they would have saved plenty of money because all alternative SMG were not just better but also much cheaper and there was little to no need for development. By 1930 the MP28, MP34, Erma and Suomi had all entered production. 

 

[R011]

1 hour ago, Markus Becker said:

The other way around. The US started buying way overpriced Thompsons before 1927. Had they looked into alternatives, they would have saved plenty of money because all alternative SMG were not just better but also much cheaper and there was little to no need for development. By 1930 the MP28, MP34, Erma and Suomi had all entered production. 

 

NIH and the Army bought just a handful, not a general issue.

[R011]

Apparently, the Navy bought 500 around 1930.  The Army none until 1938. I suspect getting licences for foreign SMGs might have been hard to get approved both from Congress and the original nations.

And any SMG would need to be in .45 ACP.

Edited June 28 by R011

[Markus Becker]

First purchase was by the Coast Guard pre 27, next was the Post Office in 27, their guns ended up with the Marines, the Navy bought more for the Marines and declared them standard, the Army sort of followed and finally the FBI got some.

Not in vast numbers but for an exorbitant price over many years. 

 

WRT imports, MP28 and so on were happily exported and copied. 

[Markus Becker]

2 hours ago, R011 said:

And any SMG would need to be in .45 ACP.

Why? The party trick of .45 was the one hit manstoppter. With a gun that's by default full auto, that is meaningless. And if the gun in question costs a third or quarter....

[R011]

Just now, Markus Becker said:

Why? The party trick of .45 was the one hit manstoppter. With a gun that's by default full auto, that is meaningless. And if the gun in question costs a third or quarter....

Because .45 ACP was the standard US pistol cartridge and they weren't going to change over ort add a new one in peacetime.  Certainly not for the few hundred SMGs they thought they needed.  Tooling up or building a factory in 1938 for the small number the US Army wanted would probably cost more than just buying Thompsons already in production even before conversion to .45 and assuming politicians at both ends would permit it.

[Markus Becker]

8 minutes ago, R011 said:

Because .45 ACP was the standard US pistol cartridge and they weren't going to change over ort add a new one in peacetime.  Certainly not for the few hundred SMGs they thought they needed.  Tooling up or building a factory in 1938 for the small number the US Army wanted would probably cost more than just buying Thompsons already in production even before conversion to .45 and assuming politicians at both ends would permit it.

In 1930 the Thompson was long out of production. All 15,000 had been made around 1920 by Colt. 

 

[R011]

15 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

In 1930 the Thompson was long out of production. All 15,000 had been made around 1920 by Colt. 

 

So they only had to buy OTS without waiting for manufacture, let alone a new factory.

Once war broke out, the Thompson tooling and drawings still existed and cost was much less of an object.  Still, they did start designing newer, much cheaper, and easier to make SMGs eventually resulting in the M3.

Edited June 28 by R011

[R011]

If there had been 15,000 private sector funded, American-made, .45 cal. MP-28 or Suomi lying about with tooling to make more on demand, then they might have chosen it instead.

[Markus Becker]

16 hours ago, R011 said:

So they only had to buy OTS without waiting for manufacture, let alone a new factory.

If there had been 15,000 private sector funded, American-made, .45 cal. MP-28 or Suomi lying about with tooling to make more on demand, then they might have chosen it instead.

MP28 and MP34 were available in .45ACP and better and cheaper and in the 1930-32/38 timeframe even from a not-dictatorship. Yet they kept buying the inferior product for an inflated price.

 

[Harold Jones]

NIH was standard procedure for almost every small arms producing country on the planet. You can find exceptions here and there, but for the most part they all went with home grown designs good, bad, or indifferent.  In the end the war wasn't decided by the caliber or operating system of the small arms the troops on any side used. 

[Markus Becker]

2 hours ago, Harold Jones said:

NIH was standard procedure for almost every small arms producing country on the planet. 

The USA looks like a particularly bad example of this. Over in Europe licensing seems to have been far more common. Presumably because of more but smaller national markets. 

Not just wrt guns but also submarine diesel engines circa 1920 come to mind. 

 

PS: The Navy ditched those fast in exchange for ... reverse engineered German engines. 

Edited June 29 by Markus Becker

[RichTO90]

2 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

The USA looks like a particularly bad example of this. Over in Europe licensing seems to have been far more common. Presumably because of more but smaller national markets. 

Not just wrt guns but also submarine diesel engines circa 1920 come to mind. 

 

PS: The Navy ditched those fast in exchange for ... reverse engineered German engines. 

Not exactly, it was quite a bit more complicated than that. The Navy General Board did try to copy the Great War MAN diesels interwar, without much success. Their copy was only used in the T-3 that was decommissioned in 1927. Various parts of the German design were incorporated into other designs, but the interwar type engines (Nelseco, Busch-Sulzer, and Hoover-Owens-Rentschler) were all basically unreliable failures. The engines finally settled on were the GM (Cleveland-Winton) Grey Marine and the Fairbanks-Morse (which was a Junkers license). After World War II the Navy continued using the GM and FM engines before going nuke.

[R011]

8 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

MP28 and MP34 were available in .45ACP and better and cheaper and in the 1930-32/38 timeframe even from a not-dictatorship. Yet they kept buying the inferior product for an inflated price.

 

Were they made in the USA?  Was there any realistic chance of getting a licence?  Were there thousands in a US warehouse available right away?

Edited June 29 by R011

[Markus Becker]

21 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Not exactly, it was quite a bit more complicated than that. The Navy General Board did try to copy the Great War MAN diesels interwar, without much success. Their copy was only used in the T-3 that was decommissioned in 1927. Various parts of the German design were incorporated into other designs, but the interwar type engines (Nelseco, Busch-Sulzer, and Hoover-Owens-Rentschler) were all basically unreliable failures. The engines finally settled on were the GM (Cleveland-Winton) Grey Marine and the Fairbanks-Morse (which was a Junkers license). After World War II the Navy continued using the GM and FM engines before going nuke.

The reverse engineered diesels were actually a big success. As powerful and reliable as the German ones, just a bit heavier. The Navy however didn't trust itself and operated them at reduced ratings until 1930 or so. When the Navy began moving away from direct drive to diesel electric.

 

So more but smaller engines were needed. Afaik the HOR were US designs, very promising on paper but not sufficiently reliable at the time. 

PS: Last class to use the 'German' direct dive diesels were the 1933 Cachalots. 

Edited June 30 by Markus Becker

[Markus Becker]

19 hours ago, R011 said:

Were they made in the USA?  Was there any realistic chance of getting a licence?  Were there thousands in a US warehouse available right away?

Again, Thompsons were long out of production and it's not like anyone needed many before 1939.

Who needs US production if you do purchases of 250-500 guns for substitute standard roles? But for 200$ a gun. A very hefty price tag for a niche firearm. 

 

[RichTO90]

6 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

The reverse engineered diesels were actually a big success. As powerful and reliable as the German ones, just a bit heavier. The Navy however didn't trust itself and operated them at reduced ratings until 1930 or so. When the Navy began moving away from direct drive to diesel electric.

Well, yeah, they operated "them at reduced ratings", all they way until 1927. For about six years IIRC, in the T3. And for a bit longer in V8 and V9 (thanks for reminding me of them), they were both re-engined with GM-Winton in 1936. Not sure how that validates your claim that "the Navy ditched those [indigenous US diesel designs and production] fast in exchange for ... reverse engineered German engines"? The Navy's submarines of the 1920s and into the 1930s were powered by Nelseco, Busch-Sulzer, and Hoover-Owens-Rentschler diesel engines. The Grey Marine and Fairbanks-Morse date from the late 1930s. The Grey Marine is a GM truck diesel and has nothing to do with the MAN submarine diesels. The Fairbanks-Morse does have a German connection, but not to MAN, rather to Junkers, and not to a submarine diesel, but rather to an aircraft diesel, the Jumo 205.

 

Quote

So more but smaller engines were needed. Afaik the HOR were US designs, very promising on paper but not sufficiently reliable at the time.

Yep.  Not sure I said anything different?

Quote

PS: Last class to use the 'German' direct dive diesels were the 1933 Cachalots.

Yep...and they kept them for about two years before the problems with them became too mucj and they were replaced by an indigenous design.

Edited June 30 by RichTO90

[Markus Becker]

I’m getting my info from Diesels for the First Stealth Weapon. Submarine Power, 1902-1945 by Cummings.

US WW1 submarine diesels came across as the worst of any nation by far. German ones as the opposite. When the USN got a few German subs as prices the crews could not praise their diesels enough. Thus the so called V-boats were all* getting the reverse engineered German engines that turned out to be far batter than the engines of the preceding S and R classes.

But not entirely free of problems. To what degree this was the result of the reverse engineering -German offers of a license and tech support had been rejected – or inherent issues with direct drive, especially at the high surface speeds the USN was looking for, I do not know.

In any case diesel electric turned out to be even better. If your prop shaft is a few feet short instead of running through a good part of the boat longitudinal vibration never becomes and issue in the first place.

*Correction: Six out of nine. The first three had US designed engines.

 

[RichTO90]

3 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

I’m getting my info from Diesels for the First Stealth Weapon. Submarine Power, 1902-1945 by Cummings.

US WW1 submarine diesels came across as the worst of any nation by far. German ones as the opposite. When the USN got a few German subs as prices the crews could not praise their diesels enough. Thus the so called V-boats were all* getting the reverse engineered German engines that turned out to be far batter than the engines of the preceding S and R classes.

But not entirely free of problems. To what degree this was the result of the reverse engineering -German offers of a license and tech support had been rejected – or inherent issues with direct drive, especially at the high surface speeds the USN was looking for, I do not know.

In any case diesel electric turned out to be even better. If your prop shaft is a few feet short instead of running through a good part of the boat longitudinal vibration never becomes and issue in the first place.

*Correction: Six out of nine. The first three had US designed engines.

Interesting, I never realized the V-4 through V-7 had the MAN diesels originally. Also interesting that only V-7 kept them.

However, I'm still not sure how that validates your claim that "the Navy ditched those [indigenous US diesel designs and production] fast in exchange for ... reverse engineered German engines"? They experimented with them in a limited number of vessels - seven if my count is correct. Then dropped them and built roughly 18 with indigenous designs, before settling on the Fairbanks-Morse and GM.

The German designs as reverse-engineered were found wanting and were ditched fast in exchange for indigenous US diesel designs. 😁 Albeit the Fairbanks-Morse was distinctly influenced by a German diesel design, the Junkers Jumo 205 aero engine. 

Edited July 1 by RichTO90

[Rick]

Was there any thought of making a shorter 30-06 round like Germany did with the 7.92 Kurz?

[sunday]

43 minutes ago, Rick said:

Was there any thought of making a shorter 30-06 round like Germany did with the 7.92 Kurz?

7.62x51mm excepted, you mean. It is shorter but equally powerful.

[Markus Becker]

On 7/1/2024 at 5:17 PM, RichTO90 said:

However, I'm still not sure how that validates your claim that "the Navy ditched those [indigenous US diesel designs and production] fast in exchange for ... reverse engineered German engines"? They experimented with them in a limited number of vessels - seven if my count is correct. Then dropped them and built roughly 18 with indigenous designs, before settling on the Fairbanks-Morse and GM.

 

I meant that the USN stopped using US designed direct drive engines, went to German designs but didn't build many and eventually settled on DE. 

[R011]

10 hours ago, Rick said:

Was there any thought of making a shorter 30-06 round like Germany did with the 7.92 Kurz?

There was .30 Carbine which was less powerful than 7.92 Kurz or 7.62 x 39.  The US liked the ballistics of the .30-06 so much that its replacement, 7.62 NATO, while a bit shorter, had very similar performance,

[RichTO90]

13 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

I meant that the USN stopped using US designed direct drive engines, went to German designs but didn't build many and eventually settled on DE. 

Gotcha. That's better. 😁

[RichTO90]

10 hours ago, R011 said:

There was .30 Carbine which was less powerful than 7.92 Kurz or 7.62 x 39.  The US liked the ballistics of the .30-06 so much that its replacement, 7.62 NATO, while a bit shorter, had very similar performance,

Pedersen .276? The US wasn't enamored with the ballistics of the .30, they didn't want to spend the money to replace it in 1932.