Modern era small arms/WWII

Just for fun[?];
If any of today's small-arms were available during WWII, would the War Departments choose them over their WWII counterparts?
Sigs over Lugers?
AK's over PPSh's?

etc.

 

The Katushka RPG would seem to work well in WWII. It has killed alot of people the last 25 years in the middle east.

 

The 'assault-rifle' revolution started by the Germans with the MP43/44 would most certainly see the demise of all the 'full-power' rifles of WWII ( eg M1 Garand, Enfield MkIV, K98, Moisin-Nagant etc ).

The intermediate cartridge as used in the AK47, M-16, SA-80 etc would dominate and the submachinegun would virtually disappear except for use by specialised forces ( as in the case of the H&K MP5 with US SEALs ).

Some people would say that the British Army would be better served by the Lee Enfield than by their SA-80 rifle ( but actually, the Armalite AR-18 assault rifle would probably be a more practical choice ).

 

I think that the British and (especially) American armies would need a great deal of convincing of the merits of a calibre as small as 5.56mm NATO. Even after WW2 the British decided that 6.8mm was ideal and the American brass refused to consider anything smaller than the full-power 7.62x51, even with all of their war experience and the example of the StG 44 (and later the AK47) in front of them!

Possibly the Germans wouldn't be happy as well - they were looking at assault rifle rounds pre-WW2, but no smaller than 7mm calibre. Only the Russians would have been happy with the AK47.

 

I am here. The standard US Army M-16 is 5.56 mm, right? Our C5 Dimaco (an M16 built in license) was 5.56. My instuctor explained that an 5.56 propably wouldn't stop a charging enemy pumped up with adrenaline unless you hit some organs. Ithought the 5.56 was pretty much the standard in Europe/Western world countries as far as caliber is concerned. From the discussion above I gather that bigger calibre is. I do know that before this new generation of machine guns/rifles there we had the Fall, which was 7.62, which was the standard in Holland and many other counrties. I do think that the tendency is to go smaller in caliber.

 

I'm with Tony.
Mr Stoner[inventor of the m-16] had a heck of a time convincing the brass about the smaller round.
Vietnam era M-16s were iffy if kept dirty and I don't believe "plastics/polymer" would have been accepted material in WWII.

TA's reply about RPGs would have been an excellent alternative[less smoke trail] to the panzerfaust.

 

My bad here, I think....by 'intermediate', I meant power as opposed to calibre, eg 7.92x33 MP44, 7.62x29 AK47, etc....

 

I read too quick too... Still, I think the M16 is a great leap forward compared to the grease gun, fo example. And I am not sure about the plastics, the US Army has always been in favor (to my knowledge) of using new technologies.

As to hand guns, I don't know. I think the Colt 9mm still stands up to many handguns today. Maybe the Sig 226 (but they must like the plastics...). NOT the Glock 17 though....

 

I think that the assault rifle would be a dominant weapon on the WWII battlefield. There would have been a hard time with getting buy-in for the smaller caliber, but shot is shot, and you leave the battlefield. Higher rates of fire mean more chances to hit, so you either lighten the ammunition or build bigger soldiers. Having hefted a belt with several hundred 7.62 X 39 rounds I cannot wish to carry the same amount of .308 or 30-06 let alone 7.62 X 54.

I gotta stay with the .45 for close combat though. Nothing stops them in their tracks like a big slow hollow pointed boulder.

 

If both sides had them they make no difference.

 

That would seem to be the logical answer. One thing we do have to remember though is that one of the biggest deciding factors of the conflict was logistics. Would it have made a difference if the allies had to ship more ammunition because they shot it faster? Would it have made a difference to the German war effort if they had to manufacture and supply more rounds to their troops. The difference in the materials to produce more smaller rounds may make the entire logistics point a wash, but I think there is more to it than just having the same weapons in the hands of the combatants.

 

The RPG definately, and with its addition smaller caliburs would have been enough (not having to punch through walls/armor and such).
After these (both side) assult rifles/RPGs either the same amount of casulties would have occured quicker, or there would have been many more.
Tactics would surely have to change or it would have been a carnage like WW1. SMG units on the Russian front had great advantage/success over bolt action, and were implemented on both sides. The amount of ammo expended would have been obscene, but one less Battleship makes alot of bullets.

 

Can I have the Apache Helicopter, or mayabe a squadron of em...failing that I will stick with my old dependable British Army 7.62 SLR. Makes you feel safe and secure when you have a noiser than average (SA80) bang and recoil. With a magazine of 20 rounds, to your front...blow everything away...commence..