Why didn't the US adopt the STG-44 after WW2?

Submitted by TurboTortois3 t3_zr3sct in history

The STG-44, created by Germany during the Second World War, was the first ever assault rifle in the world. We know that the Germans surrendered in 1945, and large stockpiles of weapons were presumably left behind, including STG-44s. Furthermore, US soldiers must have captured some STG-44s from killed German soldiers, and reverse engineering the assault rifle technology must have been possible due to the United States' massive industrial capability.

Today, we know that automatic rifles are a staple of modern militaries, and the Soviets knew that during the late 1940s with the AK-47. However, the US military still used the semi-automatic M1 Garand several years after the war, and then replaced it with the M14, which was capable of automatic fire but was unreliable and uncontrollable when used that way. Only until the Vietnam War (30 years after the end of WW2 and the developments of the STG-44 and AK-47) was the M16 introduced.

So, I'm kind of confused on why the US didn't adopt the STG-44 after WW2. Surely it must have been an improvement over previous weapons and the US would have been able to reverse engineer and mass produce the weapon.

87

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

RonPossible t1_j1283lt wrote

First, the US exited WW2 with a few million M1 Garand rifles. In the post-war drawdown, there was no urgency to replace that proven platform. Development of the replacement began in 1944, but really didn't go anywhere until the Korean War.

The UK proposed the .280 British round, in part based on the StG-44's 7.92 performance. The US rejected anything under .30 and found the .280's ballistics substandard compared to the .30-06. The 7.62mm was selected because it's ballistics matched the .30-06 due to newly developed powder. Also because the US Bureau of Ordnance wasn't keen on a non-American design.

132

Ekenda t1_j134s75 wrote

God learning about the absolute shit-show that was BuOrd and the 7.62 NATO adoption at that time is infuriating.

23

SigilumSanctum t1_j158h4p wrote

If you think thats bad, you should look into the MK14 Torpedo fiasco.

12

ArkyBeagle t1_j15mxq9 wrote

One of the best YouTube videos of all time. I had a family member who told me about that decades ago ( they ran out the end of their career at Electric Boat ) but this covers it so well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ5Ru7Zu_1I&t=5s

8

Ekenda t1_j176ui8 wrote

Oh I know about the MK14 Torpedo. That shit was just rage inducing. I cannot imagine being one of the sub commanders at that time.

2

Ironclad2nd t1_j13bjfc wrote

There is no definitive proof to suggest the .280 was a sub-standard round. It provided much higher muzzle velocity and penetration capability compared to the 7.62 round plus much lighter weight. (Moving to 5.56 on the 60’s is proof of this concept.) The only thing correct about this is ‘the US didn’t want a foreign design.’ Remember, military industrial complex was at its strongest right after WW2

11

greennitit t1_j13g95o wrote

When it comes to ballistic projectiles nothing is better or worse than any other. It’s just a matter of application. The .280 would have had a slight flatter curve and slower speed down range as opposed to a .30. At the end of the day it’s a matter of what the military seems as necessary energy at muzzle, 100 ft, 500ft etc with consideration to bullet drop trade off for larger rounds

11

akodo1 t1_j20i5kt wrote

Don't forget, each military from WW1 onwards faced the question: do I get the cartridge that is GREAT in the medium machingun but recoil heavily in the individual rifle or reverse that.

2

Ironclad2nd t1_j13xcvc wrote

Like I said: .280 had a higher penetration capability as well as muzzle velocity. I can’t remember the source but .308 was 4x slower than 5.56 and about 1.9x slower than the .280 thus less of the capabilities mentioned above. The only thing true was that the US did not want a foreign concept inducted into their military simply out of politics…. Nothing else.

−1

Due_Signature_5497 t1_j13y421 wrote

Only comment I might argue is “at it’s strongest” . I don’t think we heeded the warning that Eisenhower gave us about the military industrial complex when he left the presidency. The fact that the Iranian drones that have been shot down are made with 82% American provided parts, and we are essentially arming both sides in the Ukraine shows the power that they still have.

4

Cryptic_Alt t1_j15l4h6 wrote

Arming both sides is probably the oldest human tradition.

2

series_hybrid t1_j14p0lw wrote

Whenever I hear about sub-standard ballistics from anything other than the 30-06, I have to laugh.

Studies by the Americans, British, and everyone else showed that the vast majority if "hits" in WWII were less than 100 yards.

I can understand snipers wanting more. The majority of confirmed hits by Chris Kyle was with a 300 WinMag. He said if he had a 338 Lapua available earlier, he would have preferred that.

The average soldier has a hard time hitting stationary targets that are black and white at 400m

Just before WW-One, the Navy developed a 6mm cartridge for the Lee straight-pull rifle, but the first batch sank in Cuba. Roughly .24 caliber

5

MonkeyBoy_1966 t1_j13f1fg wrote

Garands were designed to use the .276 Pedersen, not the .280 round.

2

horrifyingthought t1_j128hys wrote

It wasn't that the US couldn't develop assault rifles, it was that they didn't like what they offered as much compared to the accuracy, stopping power, range, and ammo conservation provided by other options.

100

ParaglidingAssFungus t1_j1broq2 wrote

Exactly. I spent 8 years in the US Army. Not once did I see an automatic variant of the M4 or M16. They would be mostly useless for anything other than indirect suppressing fire. The M4s and M16s have a 3 round burst selector but it is also pretty much useless and the only time I’ve ever seen someone use it or used it myself was to expend ammo quickly at the end of a range day so that we didn’t have to turn it in (because it’s a lot of paperwork to turn in live ammo rather than just spent brass).

I’ve never shot an AK so I can’t speak to their accuracy but as far as my experience goes, any light personal rifle would be worse off with an automatic fire option because everyone would want to use it and become less accurate, and they would burn through their personal ammo load incredibly quickly. Semi automatic with placed shots works far better. If we need to send some rounds down range, that’s what we have SAWs and crew served weapons for. Our training doesn’t really revolve around automatic weapon fire either, even when training specifically on automatic fire weapons (SAWs, 240Bs, M2s) we were trained to fire in short 3-5 round bursts, anything past that and you’re wildly inaccurate (and that’s on a weapon with a bipod/mount).

So I guess my best answer would be, if we don’t arm your average infantryman with an automatic weapon now, that’s probably why they didn’t want to back then either.

11

TheGreatOneSea t1_j1cmpo3 wrote

The US did actually develop an assault style weapon, the M2 Carbine, which was an automatic M1 with a 30 round clip.

It was too late for WW2 beyond some Marines in Okinawa, but in Korea, the US noted pretty much what you said, that inexperienced soldiers tended to panic and blow through their ammunition, while experienced ones proved highly effective in places where short-ranged engagements were likely.

The STG 44 had better range and power, of course, but it's also much heavier, to the point that the M2 might have been preferred if the US was given a choice between the two.

2

SignificantTrout t1_j1g6hhr wrote

My father was an infantry man in WWII. From what he told me it was pretty easy for guys to blow through the clip on an M1 too

1

ParaglidingAssFungus t1_j1g8k5d wrote

Yeah, with 8 round magazines that will happen. Little less likely with 30 round mags and a 210 round personal load.

1

bangdazap t1_j125ws6 wrote

The assault rifle concept is a bit counterintuitive because compared to the M1 Garand/M14 rifle, the StG-44 has a shorter effective range. The US military wanted to squeeze a "full power" cartridge into an automatic rifle like the M14 to achieve that greater range. We now know that 200-300 meters is the typical engagement range in a modern firefight, and therefore the /.62 mm NATO cartridge is unnecessarily powerful and the recoil is too much for the user to control it during full auto.

Another factor was an obsession with "stopping power", the M16 was derided as a "varmint rifle" because it used a .223 caliber cartridge.

A third factor was the arrogance of the victor, it can happen to every nation. The US military felt that since they won WWII with the Garand, it was a proven winning concept, so they went ahead with the /.62 mm NATO cartridge for the M14 which was essentially a further development of the M1 Garand.

61

aught4naught t1_j12bvkf wrote

Plus bigger bullets weight more so consequently soldiers can carry fewer.

16

dittybopper_05H t1_j13mwib wrote

Ironically, though, the StG-44 is about 1 or 2 lbs heavier than an M-1 Garand. It doesn't *LOOK* like it, you'd think the Garand is heavier just looking at it, but it's not.

The other thing to consider is that the StG-44 is, essentially, a disposable gun. It's made largely of stampings, and they will wear out much quicker than a Garand. You can put tens of thousands of rounds through an M-1 with no difficulty, but a Sturmgewehr will wear out long before that. Plus, it's more prone to being damaged than an M-1.

But I think perhaps the biggest reason why is because the M-1 was a battle-proven platform which the US literally had millions of them in stock. Completely switching over from that to a new gun with new ammo (.30'06 Kurz?) would have been seen as an unnecessary waste of money.

6

ArkyBeagle t1_j15oh4v wrote

I think the new weapon adopted , the Next Generation Squad Weapon or XM5 they use "practice" rounds at lower velocity and only switch to "combat" rounds when it's For Real. The barrel seems to wear out with the fairly extreme round chosen for that. That's a sea change from prior doctrine.

1

dittybopper_05H t1_j18hu2s wrote

I'm still aghast at that decision. Fully loaded with the suppressor, that's an 11.24 lb rifle. That's actually the heaviest infantry rifle ever adopted by the US military.

And the cartridge is another matter. The practice rounds are still zippy enough to be used in combat, and I'm willing to bet that cost considerations are going to ensure that the reduced version gets used in combat. Which is still nothing to sneeze at: It's essentially a 7mm-08.

I mean, I'm one of those weirdos who likes the concept of a battle rifle, but they shouldn't be significantly heavier than an M-1 Garand or an M-14.

2

ArkyBeagle t1_j1953zj wrote

> That's actually the heaviest infantry rifle ever adopted by the US military.

True.

> I'm willing to bet that cost considerations are going to ensure that the reduced version gets used in combat.

Huh. What I've read says the gain of function looked for was piercing body armor. So maybe you're right.

> but they shouldn't be significantly heavier than an M-1 Garand or an M-14.

Most likely. I imagine the M16 will still be in use.

1

dittybopper_05H t1_j198kku wrote

From what I hear the M-4 is going to still be issued to non-infantry troops, while the actual trigger pullers are going to get the XM5.

2

Eokokok t1_j1327xm wrote

And yet we are back at big bullets with next gen rifle going into production.

3

fiendishrabbit t1_j134ygh wrote

Because the US have been fighting all their battles in the middle east where a bigger bullet has certain advantages, mainly that it has a better effect against heavy bodyarmor and that it can penetrate double-brick walls (which is a really common feature in the middle-east and afghanistan.

Neither of those two were a factor back in the days when the US decided to go for 7.62 instead of a more suitable mid-weight cartridge. The only good argument for the 7.62 back then was that it was also a suitable cartridge for general purpose machineguns, so using the same caliber in all small arms simplified logistics.

14

greennitit t1_j13upru wrote

Also terrain in the Middle East tends to be flat and tree-less leading to longer engagement distances.

4

akodo1 t1_j20jln4 wrote

And there countyside is different. Sparce vegetation on flat terrain or scrub brush on mountains means a lot more long shot possiblity (as well as long range machinegunnery) that was experienced in Vietnam or the conflicts in Latin America

1

TurboTortois3 OP t1_j12m78p wrote

Ah, so it seems like its mainly because the US army wanted tried and true long range high caliber rifles rather than a new and unproven technology that failed to win a country a war. That makes sense, since automatic weapons had been a relatively new concept, at least compared to musket and rifle technology.

12

degotoga t1_j12ygpn wrote

don’t forget that the Garand itself was a fairly groundbreaking design as one of the first widely adopted semiautomatic battle rifles

13

Rethious t1_j136bns wrote

Automatic weapons weren’t new. Every squad had an automatic rifleman, and submachine-guns were used widely. The question was whether it was worth equipping every rifleman with an automatic weapon. This wasn’t obvious at the time.

The M1 and M14 had superior range and stopping power. Being able to reliably kill the enemy and not end up outranged are intuitively important. Semi-automatic weapons also mean you don’t have your entire army burning through ammunition. When you’re fighting expeditionary wars, this is a major concern because every bullet has to get shipped halfway around the world.

9

akodo1 t1_j20mmry wrote

No, it wasn't.

Automatic weapons were coming on line at pretty much the same time armies were going with fully rifles barrel breach loaders.

The Gatling gun is only not a machinegun by virtue of whacky legal definitions, and was around when most militaries had just upgraded their muzzle loaders. WW 1 was the era of the belt fed machinegun. Take a crew served belt fed MG on a tripod firing 30-06 or 8mm Mauser and you can rain hell down on incoming troops at 2000 yards.

People talk about how the WW 2 German army with their bolt action rifles weren't really outgunned because individual rifle fire was secondary to the MG. That was true of the USA too just not quite to the same degree.

Even look at Afghanistan today. A dozen fighting men can be engaging the enemy with 5.56 weapons but once you bring that M240 into the fight shit changes in a big way

1

ArkyBeagle t1_j15o3h6 wrote

Part of it is the tradition of measuring weapon effectiveness in shooting competitions within a military. There are people who frame the M14 debacle as sort of a conspiracy :) The whole story of the Armalite designs is complex; some still consider the AR10 the best in breed .

1

Downtown-Ad-8706 t1_j12eh1t wrote

Here is a copy of the official 1945 report from the US Army which may have something to do with why the weapon was not adopted.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html

33

aWheatgeMcgee t1_j12jicg wrote

“Limitations

In their attempts to produce a light, accurate weapon having considerable fire power by mass production methods, however, the Germans encountered difficulties which have seriously limited the effectiveness of the Sturmgewehr. Because it is largely constructed of cheap stampings, it dents easily and therefore is subject to jamming. Although provision is made for both full automatic and semiautomatic fire, the piece is incapable of sustained firing and official German directives have ordered troops to use it only as a semiautomatic weapon. In emergencies, however, soldiers are permitted full automatic fire in two- to three-round bursts. The possibilities of cannibalization appear to have been overlooked and its general construction is such that it may have been intended to be an expendable weapon and to be thrown aside in combat if the individual finds himself unable to maintain it properly.”

42

KarmaticIrony t1_j12mm1y wrote

TLDR compared to the M1 rifles and carbines the US already possesed the STG-44 was significantly heavier and less reliable. It's major X factor of possessing automatic fire was essentially useless as automatic fire is not useful for most rifleman in general and the STG-44 in particular was not well designed for sustained automatic fire.

33

Cristoff13 t1_j12pf96 wrote

Yet part of the definition of an assault rifle is it must be capable of selective fire. And the great majority of intermediate calibre rifles in military service still have selective fire. This despite most sources I've seen agreeing automatic fire is something the great majority of riflemen very rarely, if ever, use.

And the STG-44 wasn't a very well constructed rifle. It was almost a last ditch weapon, sacrificing longevity of service for ease of manufacture.

8

ParaglidingAssFungus t1_j1bteki wrote

That selective fire also includes 3 round burst rather than full auto, which is what most of the US Army’s M4s and M16s have.

2

Anchor-1 t1_j14avhu wrote

US War Department is savage. Tell us how you really feel. lul

5

Laughedindeathsface t1_j124q0h wrote

I'm just throwing this out there. We also realized pretty quick that semi-auto is better for accuracy minus a few automatic weapons per squad for suppression.

US military has always preferred semi-automatic for it main weapon systems. Promotes accuracy, ammo conservation, less time reloading because mag fed full auto is 2 secs, 3 tops.

26

PontiniY t1_j12a5v0 wrote

The STG-44 was both.

5

KarmaticIrony t1_j12krmg wrote

Indeed and it was primarily used in semi-auto by German troops. The concept of an assault rifle as we know it today was not really achieved in technical design or tactical use until to introduction of the AK47.

In that case the soviets were looking for a replacement for their SMGs rather than intentionally introducing a new type of weapon.

4

degotoga t1_j12yuhz wrote

That’s not really true. The StG is considered to be the first assault rifle and the AK47 was developed in response to it

1

PontiniY t1_j16f7sw wrote

I wasn't there, but I reckon the STG-44 was used extensively in full-auto mode for both covering fire and clearing rooms.

1

KarmaticIrony t1_j17gkjo wrote

Not according to the records of both the allied and axis soldiers who were there.

2

PontiniY t1_j1fjccq wrote

Do you have sources for that? I know they were instructed to use primarily semi-auto, due to ammunition supply issues, but I can't find anything about what they actually did in said circumstances.

1

KarmaticIrony t1_j1fqeux wrote

I dont have them immediately on hand and I don't care enough to dig them up for you.

0

PontiniY t1_j1fx6f8 wrote

You could just say you don't have them, it's fine. As far as I'm aware, they're basically nonexistent anyway, hence my conjecture.

1

skimdit t1_j131dnl wrote

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

  1. It was poorly rated: "The British were critical of the weapon, saying that the receiver could be bent and the bolt locked up by the mere act of knocking a leaning rifle onto a hard floor.[15] A late-war U.S. assessment derided the StG-44 as "mediocre", "bulky" and "unhandy", declaring it incapable of sustained automatic fire and prone to jamming, though the report accepted that its accuracy was "excellent for a weapon of its type".[16]"
  2. The US already had the .30 caliber M1 carbine that they converted to the M2 carbine: "In 1944 the US added an automatic fire capability to the M1 carbine, and issued it as the M2 carbine with 30 round magazines, fulfilling much the same function. Kits were distributed to convert M1 carbines to M2s."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#/media/File:US_M2_Carbine.jpg

9

LordBoxington t1_j12q89f wrote

You're completely forgetting about the BAR and Tommy Gun, it's not like we didn't have a varied assortment heavy and light automatic rifles and pistols.

We stole earned them rockets, though

6

dirtydopedan t1_j15fv5d wrote

Ever heard of the M2 carbine? Was heavily utilized in Korea along with the Garand.

Why retool and then mass produce the STG when you have close to 6 million M1 carbines that can be converted to a select fire, intermediate caliber platform that can utilize already existing ammo reserves, magazines, and spare parts.

5

Ironclad2nd t1_j12qyyf wrote

Everything except your last statement was true. ‘The US didn’t want a non-US design.’ The .280 was effective in both ballistics and cost effectiveness not to mention weight for the soldier carrying it. It was proven come the 5.56 over the 7.62. The main issue the US had was millions of rounds of 30.06 which had already been made and nowhere to use them.

3

imseeingthings t1_j13am8k wrote

If the left over 30.06 ammo was a factor, why do they switch to .308 and not switch to 5.56 or .280 or any other cartridge.

1

Ironclad2nd t1_j13bx3j wrote

7.62… not .308. Remember, ballistics are different. Ammo has a shelf life, once that shelf life is reached, the ammunition becomes unviable. Also, 1960’s America was the boon for military industrial complex. Much like the tobacco and oil industries, it campaigned for the newest and shiniest toys while debunking all criticism against it.

2

imseeingthings t1_j13c9gs wrote

I think maybe you misunderstood what I was saying.

I’m saying that the left over 30.06 was not the reason they didn’t adopt a smaller cartridge like the .280

They change from the 30.06 to another full power .30 caliber cartridge. that’s what they wanted to use.

2

imseeingthings t1_j13afdf wrote

Of course hindsight is 20/20

Just about every western country adopted a full caliber “battle rifle” type of weapon. Like people have said there’s some advantages to having a larger round or longer barrel. They chose that over something like the stg because they thought that would be the best choice.

Then they moved to 5.56 rounds and an assault rifle design. Because it has advantages which people have mentioned already.

And now the US is trying to switch to something more similar to a battle rifle again.

There is no best weapon or doctrine. They’re all going to have trade offs and they didn’t decide they wanted to use an “assault rifle” until the War In Vietnam.

Also I think people look at the stg like it was the greatest weapon of all time. Sure it was one of the first “assault rifles” but that doesn’t make it hands down better than its contemporaries

3

timmysoboy t1_j12biyt wrote

*edit: deleted the comment because others got the same ideas I came up with.

Check out Forgotten Weapons on YouTube for military weapons history.

2

crowman006 t1_j12r5xi wrote

With every gun manufacturer on the planet working to improve the stg-44 , the allied forces were arguing about which cartridge to chamber in the FAL . Belgium licensed almost every free world country to manufacture their own . The Spaniards went with the cetme , and the Germans improved it to the HK G-3 , all chambered to the US .308 , renamed to its metric equivalent. History isn’t too clear on why the U.S. didn’t follow suit with the FAL or the L1A1 . Some say the weight of the rifle , expense of both manufacturing the rifle and ammunition. Many in the pentagon liked the power of the .308 , and this is where the stories get cloudier . It seems that some in the pentagon had way too much cash and time to shop around . One might think they were shopping for kickbacks , dragging their feet and unofficially arguing about the AR10 and then it’s scaled down copy the AR15, later the M16 . Much cheaper to shoot and less recoil with the straight bolt carrier design .

2

pan_social t1_j134lg7 wrote

Well, the US did develop selective-fire weapons over time, but after WW2 the focus was on demobilisation and rebuilding, not issuing new rifles. The main opponents of the US in Europe, the Soviet Union and its allies, were still using the Mosin-Nagant, and upgrading to the semi-automatic, full-powered SKS carbine, so there wasn't any need for an untested design in order to establish fire superiority. Then atom bombs, mutually assured destruction, and it wasn't until the Vietnam war that the infantry of the US Army faced strong enough opposition that their M14s (effectively upgraded Garands) were shown to be outdated.

As for why the US didn't adopt the STG44 specifically, it had a few issues that other people have mentioned. Plus, it wasn't American - it would be a fairly humiliating thing for the US military, the most powerful in the world, to take a look at their defeated enemy and say 'actually, his gun is so good we want to replace all our weapons with it'. Plus, adopting a new weapon is more or less certain to come with a whole host of teething troubles, from design problems to supply chain issues to opposition from generals to complaints from soldiers; it just wasn't worth it to the people at the top.

2

Kussypat t1_j12zfcy wrote

I'm guessing it's a mix of the automatic being unreliable, automatic fire should really just be used by a machine gunner to suppress and that the M1 proved itself to be reliable already. I'm surprised it took them so long to give the M1 higher ammo capacity though.

1

brebas t1_j131i3i wrote

Did you ever use the Stg-44 in call of duty world at war? Thing had the worst iron sites known to man

1

BoboliBurt t1_j13hwzd wrote

Keep in mind the US immediately slashed defense budgets and demobilized. Obviously, weapons development didnt just stop- especially with h-bombs, rockets and jets- but the ground forces were in pretty abysmal shape by Korea.

5 years passed between the abolishment of the office of civil defense and the FCDA. Factoring in this slow start to the cold war and the M14 initiative, the development of the AR15 lagging so many years behind the AK and STG makes more sense.

The AKM didnt enter production until 59. Heck, Berlin wasnt sealed until 61. The Chinese and North Koreans were still using burp guns and conventional rifles, not assault rifles.

1

IGotSinging t1_j15g75h wrote

Can’t ignore the influence of military equipment/arms manufacturers, who would likely have made more $$ using their own IP and design, and would lobby accordingly. Also, perhaps a touch of patriotism in that not adopting Nazis arms would be seen as the high road? Conjecture, but my two cents.

1

ArkyBeagle t1_j15nlp4 wrote

I can't recommend Ian McCullough's ( aka Gun Jesus or Forgotten Weapons ) channel enough. A general pattern emerges where this process is failure prone.

Doctrine in that area has been turbulent to say the least.

1

ThatGIRLkimT t1_j15rykg wrote

According to resources it was created by Germany during WW2. And one of the reasons they didn't adopt is they said it is bulky.

1

akodo1 t1_j20g2ff wrote

What could the stg-44 do that an m1 carbine upgraded to full auto couldn't do?

Remember, pre. WW2 the military was looking at M1 garands in less potent calibers as well as with detachable higher capacity box magazines. They thought that troops would be wasteful of ammo, loose the mags and that would be expensive, and felt that they wanted a very long reaching cartridge

1

akodo1 t1_j20o0xo wrote

You see this kind of thinking a lot where people of the modern era have a rough understanding of warfare and lock onto a concept. Example, people who think it would be smart to carry a cap and ball revolver plus multiple preloaded cylinders so you could reload faster like a guy with clips!

Or those who argued that longbows had faster Rate of Fire therefore would have been the superior weapon choice in the 1700s

1

degotoga t1_j130yin wrote

The US and most of its allies went all in on the battle rifle concept based on their experiences in WW2, especially the success of the M1 Garand. This led to the G3, FAL, and M14. The Soviet experience led them to the assault rifle concept. It’s important to note that the Eastern front was larger and had a lot more combat than any other theater of the war.

Weapons in the Korean War were primarily WW2 designs, so it’s not surprising that the US didn’t realize the superiority of assault rifles until the M14 faced the AK47 in Vietnam

0

odomotto t1_j12uwr6 wrote

Thompson sub machine gun. 30 caliber carbine with selector switch. Early American assault rifles.

−2

degotoga t1_j12z160 wrote

a squad smg is not equivalent to an assault rifle

6

odomotto t1_j13x96g wrote

I'm not aware of a "squad"SMG. The BAR was the main issue automatic weapon. Thompsons were issued to commandos and paratroopers. Small, powerful, for troops that "assaulted enemy positions.

0

degotoga t1_j147wt4 wrote

That’s incorrect. Thompsons were issued to NCOs and officers in all infantry units in order to enhance automatic fire at the squad level

It is neither a carbine nor an assault rifle

2

Downtown-Ad-8706 t1_j15w7iu wrote

M1 and M3 SMGs don't show up in US Army Infantry TO&Es till 45. They were however "acquired" by enterprising infantrymen on an unofficial basis.

The USMC began issuing M1 SMGs when it adopted the F Series organization in 1944

1

degotoga t1_j15ywfz wrote

That was the doctrine, but in practice commanders had the power to requisition and issue SMGs, usually to NCOs and officers. As well as unofficial acquisition as you’ve said

1

ArkyBeagle t1_j15pzyi wrote

The original was .45 ACP and the FBI got 10mm conversions.

2

[deleted] t1_j1255s6 wrote

[removed]

−5