Out of Mothballs: Obsolescent Weaponry on the T2k Battlefield

[bash]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbres

For V1 or 2 canon could we also assume there would be an expedited return of M1 Garand, M 1 Carbines and 1911's from Military Assistance Programs to Allies or would you as referee assume the small arms would be of limited use and left in place rather than devote resources to bring them back home?

I don't think the government would bother trying to bring back such weapons. Before TDM there wouldn't be much of a need and after TDM there wouldn't be much capability.

Even if they came back to the US, ammunition production after TDM would be common NATO rounds to support the war, not oddball (relatively speaking) rounds for M1 Garands and Carbines.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by bash

I don't think the government would bother trying to bring back such weapons. Before TDM there wouldn't be much of a need and after TDM there wouldn't be much capability.

Even if they came back to the US, ammunition production after TDM would be common NATO rounds to support the war, not oddball (relatively speaking) rounds for M1 Garands and Carbines.

As far as .30-06, I think that there would be more around than you think, but in the civilian supply chain. .30-06 is a common hunting round in the US and to a lesser extent in the rest of the world, and commercial manufacturing has been going strong since the 1910s.

M1 descendants are also fairly common hunting weapons, so there may be less spare parts issues with issue of M1 Garands from government stocks or impounded civilian stocks. (I don't think this would happen until post-TDM, however.)

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

As far as .30-06, I think that there would be more around than you think, but in the civilian supply chain. .30-06 is a common hunting round in the US and to a lesser extent in the rest of the world, and commercial manufacturing has been going strong since the 1910s.

M1 descendants are also fairly common hunting weapons, so there may be less spare parts issues with issue of M1 Garands from government stocks or impounded civilian stocks. (I don't think this would happen until post-TDM, however.)

Lake City loads 100,000 AP rounds or so every few years for body armor testing. the armor levels are based on the .30-06 AP penetration.

[bash]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

As far as .30-06, I think that there would be more around than you think, but in the civilian supply chain. .30-06 is a common hunting round in the US and to a lesser extent in the rest of the world, and commercial manufacturing has been going strong since the 1910s.

M1 descendants are also fairly common hunting weapons, so there may be less spare parts issues with issue of M1 Garands from government stocks or impounded civilian stocks. (I don't think this would happen until post-TDM, however.)

Like I said, before TDM there wouldn't be a need for M1s (Garand or Carbine) and after TDM there might be a need but little means to actually get them to the US. Post-TDM no one is going to spend valuable fuel to transport a bunch of rifles back to the US.

In terms of ammo production, the US would likely enforce the Defense Production Act as soon as US forces start fighting. So from 1996 onwards small arms companies are going to be spitting out NATO standard stuff (guns, ammo, maintenance kits, etc). Production of ammo etc for the civilian market will drop to a trickle.

The US getting a few tens of thousands of M1s will be a logistical challenge rather than a helpful addition. Every cleaning kit, stripper clip, and .30-06 round is one less produced that could be used for the US/NATO service weapons.

So I don't see the utility of the US trying to field M1s. I do however think those MAP recipient countries would be fielding them. Even if their front line forces had newer weapons they'd equip militias/conscripts/rear echelons with their old M1s. The sorts of places that got MAP weapons aren't seeing the same level of fighting as Europe or the Far East.

[micromachine]

Logistically, bringing the M1 Garand back would be tough. I suggest that it would be done for some of the reasons below:

a) Frees up the last stores of more modern weapons (Coast Guard, Naval Land detachments, Training battalions, etc.) for front line use.

b) Commercially available ammunition (Government purchase or confiscation).

c) One shot, one kill.

d) Lots of variants and parts available.

e) Semi automatic firepower for units that may lack it (State Militias and the like).

f) Cross compatibility with the M1895, M1903, M1917 rifle, M1917 mmg, M1918 bar, M1919mmg and the plethora of hunting rifles in this caliber.

g) Kalashnikov-esque ruggedness that has already been bought and paid for by Uncle Sam.

If given the choice, I would take an M1 Garand coming out of mothballs rather than some baffed out M16EZ, re-issued battlefield pickup, or some other abomination in a scarce sized caliber, particularly if based in CONUS. the only real drawbacks are the en-block clip availability, lack of skilled armorers and smiths, and the chance of getting the wrong ammo at the wrong time.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by micromachine

Logistically, bringing the M1 Garand back would be tough. I suggest that it would be done for some of the reasons below:

a) Frees up the last stores of more modern weapons (Coast Guard, Naval Land detachments, Training battalions, etc.) for front line use.

b) Commercially available ammunition (Government purchase or confiscation).

c) One shot, one kill.

d) Lots of variants and parts available.

e) Semi automatic firepower for units that may lack it (State Militias and the like).

f) Cross compatibility with the M1895, M1903, M1917 rifle, M1917 mmg, M1918 bar, M1919mmg and the plethora of hunting rifles in this caliber.

g) Kalashnikov-esque ruggedness that has already been bought and paid for by Uncle Sam.

If given the choice, I would take an M1 Garand coming out of mothballs rather than some baffed out M16EZ, re-issued battlefield pickup, or some other abomination in a scarce sized caliber, particularly if based in CONUS. the only real drawbacks are the en-block clip availability, lack of skilled armorers and smiths, and the chance of getting the wrong ammo at the wrong time.

The issue would be NUMBERS. In the 90s, there were around 100K M1s in the US inventory, mostly as parade rifles or for the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Canada had roughly an equal number in the RCMP arsenal. There were more than 2 MILLION M16A1s in the US arsenal. So the US would most likely just issue M16A1s to those agencies that needed them.

[micromachine]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

The issue would be NUMBERS. In the 90s, there were around 100K M1s in the US inventory, mostly as parade rifles or for the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Canada had roughly an equal number in the RCMP arsenal. There were more than 2 MILLION M16A1s in the US arsenal. So the US would most likely just issue M16A1s to those agencies that needed them.

I don't have an issue with the M16A1 count of over two million in the US Arsenal. Canada used limited numbers of the M1 rifle, and I severely doubt that the RCMP maintained an arsenal of 100K. Canada only procured a brigade set, which I suspect was for the WW2 vintage special service force. These disappeared from service in the 1950s, and being .30-06, would be an anomaly in the caliber suite (The M1919 were rebored to 7.62mm nato). Would there come confusion with the Lee-Enfield or perhaps the C1 (L1 SLR)?
My point is simply that all cards are on the table and the frontline troops would need the most modern weapons available, so the rear areas and home areas would see these rifles pressed into service even on a small scale.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by micromachine

I don't have an issue with the M16A1 count of over two million in the US Arsenal. Canada used limited numbers of the M1 rifle, and I severely doubt that the RCMP maintained an arsenal of 100K. Canada only procured a brigade set, which I suspect was for the WW2 vintage special service force. These disappeared from service in the 1950s, and being .30-06, would be an anomaly in the caliber suite (The M1919 were rebored to 7.62mm nato). Would there come confusion with the Lee-Enfield or perhaps the C1 (L1 SLR)?
My point is simply that all cards are on the table and the frontline troops would need the most modern weapons available, so the rear areas and home areas would see these rifles pressed into service even on a small scale.

It was in fact the RCMP who were selling those M1s in the 1990s. I have the one I bought hanging on the wall as I type this. They also had CASES of both .30-06 ammo and .303 ammo. The .303 sold for as little as $25 US per case and the .3006 was $30 per case. Those were war-surplus wooden ammo crates too. They were also selling Enfields as I bought one of those too. My local gunshop bought 100 of each as well as 100 M1 Carbines. I do NOT know why the RCMP was selling those weapons but they were READILY AVAILABLE up until Clinton started his gun control measure just before the '94 ban in the US. They were also selling S&W Model 10 .38 heavy barrels and Browning Hi Powers, but I wasn't able to snag one of those. I do not know why the RCMP had those weapons, but they all appeared to be war surplus by their condition and the TWO CASES of ammo I bought were produced in the early 50s. One was US production and the other case was made by RADWAY. That Radway was some light-shooting .303.

[Brit]

Originally Posted by micromachine

Logistically, bringing the M1 Garand back would be tough. I suggest that it would be done for some of the reasons below:

Photo here I believe of a Garand being used in 2018.
https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/...nd-in-vietnam/

[Brit]

Originally Posted by Brit

Photo here I believe of a Garand being used in 2018.
https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/...nd-in-vietnam/

I think this links to the photo directly:
https://wwiiafterwwii.files.wordpres...01/dec2018.jpg