The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

SIGSHR · August 16, 2012, 10:57 PM

Once smokeless powder was developed, then the machine gun, logistics and the problems of ammo supply became even more critical than before. In addition military organizations are always looking for that elusive concept called the "all around cartridge"-the round that is, say, 90% efficient and eliminates the needs for too many specialized weapons and their ammunition.
FWIW my opinion is that the 7MM Mauser is the smallest "all-around" catridge, the Italians and Japanese found their 6.5MM rounds unsatisfactory in machine guns, in the Battle of Britain the RAF found their 303 machine guns
at best adequate, effectiveness improved only marginally by the use of tracers. And as Rumsfeld noted a few years ago, "You go to war with the army you have, not the one you'd like."
My understanding of MacArthur's rejection of the .276 Pedersen round was that he did it based on logistics-we had our M1903s and M1917s, BARs, M1917 and M1919 machine guns, and millions, if not billions of rounds of 30/06 on hand. Not to mention defense budgets were pretty tight in his day.
Then there's the question of tactics. One problem in Vietnam-which has since been corrected-was that we used the M-16 the way the Soviets used their PPShs and PPSs in WWII-basically short range weapons that conscript soldiers could quickly be trained on and used volume of fire to make up for lack of accuracy-"Spray and Pray". Which works if you can supply your troops.

August 16, 2012, 10:57 PM	#44
SIGSHR Senior Member Join Date: September 13, 2005 Posts: 4,700	Once smokeless powder was developed, then the machine gun, logistics and the problems of ammo supply became even more critical than before. In addition military organizations are always looking for that elusive concept called the "all around cartridge"-the round that is, say, 90% efficient and eliminates the needs for too many specialized weapons and their ammunition. FWIW my opinion is that the 7MM Mauser is the smallest "all-around" catridge, the Italians and Japanese found their 6.5MM rounds unsatisfactory in machine guns, in the Battle of Britain the RAF found their 303 machine guns at best adequate, effectiveness improved only marginally by the use of tracers. And as Rumsfeld noted a few years ago, "You go to war with the army you have, not the one you'd like." My understanding of MacArthur's rejection of the .276 Pedersen round was that he did it based on logistics-we had our M1903s and M1917s, BARs, M1917 and M1919 machine guns, and millions, if not billions of rounds of 30/06 on hand. Not to mention defense budgets were pretty tight in his day. Then there's the question of tactics. One problem in Vietnam-which has since been corrected-was that we used the M-16 the way the Soviets used their PPShs and PPSs in WWII-basically short range weapons that conscript soldiers could quickly be trained on and used volume of fire to make up for lack of accuracy-"Spray and Pray". Which works if you can supply your troops.