View Full Version : Counterfactual: The US Army Adopts The M42 .45 Uzi SMG As The M3 In Early 1942...
http://www.autoweapons.com/photosv/greenuzib.jpg
How does this change the war with the Uzi being adopted as the M3 and put into service as early as mid 1942. Marines in the Pacific now have wooden stock Uzis (caliber .45) rather than Reisings, M1 Thompsons or Grease Guns.
On D-Day troops who would have normally carried a Thompson now carry an Uzi. Tank crews and the like in Europe are issued the .45 Uzi rather than the Grease Gun.
Obviously the M1 Garand would have been the primary issue weapon in most theaters, but would a more compact SMG with a far more reliable magazine made a dramatic difference? I think it would have been more of a "game changer" in the Pacific (especially considering the Japanese really didn't have a SMG) than in Europe.
Eurodriver
08-06-14, 16:54
No.
Reason:
The US Army and USMC already had Grease Guns and Thompsons. Both were reliable enough that a more reliable weapon in the same caliber with the same capabilities and in the same numbers would not have made a big difference.
You want counterfactual, discuss Germany's standard issue rifle is the STG44 in 1939 or standard fighter aircraft is the ME262 in 1939. Those would have been true "game changers". I fail to see how the uzi is significantly different enough from what was already issued to even make it as a blip in the history books.
No.
Reason:
The US Army and USMC already had Grease Guns and Thompsons. Both were reliable enough that a more reliable weapon in the same caliber with the same capabilities and in the same numbers would not have made a big difference.
You want counterfactual, discuss Germany's standard issue rifle is the STG44 in 1939 or standard fighter aircraft is the ME262 in 1939. Those would have been true "game changers". I fail to see how the uzi is significantly different enough from what was already issued to even make it as a blip in the history books.
In THIS counterfactual the Grease Gun does NOT exist and the M3 is actually the Uzi. And if you don't appreciate the difference between a .45 Uzi and a M1 Thompson (especially when it comes to reliable magazines and overall weight) then there isn't much to be said.
Stg45s and Me262s early on has already been done to death. The result is of course nuclear Berlin as originally intended.
Eurodriver
08-06-14, 18:12
And if you don't appreciate the difference between a .45 Uzi and a M1 Thompson (especially when it comes to reliable magazines and overall weight) then there isn't much to be said.
I sure don't. Debating the merits of a reliable 7.7lb .45 SMG and a relatively reliable 10.6lb .45 SMG seems so meticulous...well...I'm just glad this forum is full of gun people.
Zero impact. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing...
Are you seriously asking us to quantify the impact ON WW2 of slightly improved short range weapons, issued to VERY small number of troops many of which are support guys or tankers who have bigger guns to kill with...
Its kind of like asking to quantify the impact of Glocks being issued vs the M9 as the US sidearm in the context the Iraq and Afgan wars - totally irrelevant.
This is just a dumb proposition, now its up to you to take a deep breath and admit that - and move on, or you can continue digging in because you are emotionally invested.
I sure don't. Debating the merits of a reliable 7.7lb .45 SMG and a relatively reliable 10.6lb .45 SMG seems so meticulous...well...I'm just glad this forum is full of gun people.
Well in the nicest way I know how to say it, because I like you and all that, those "gun people" would be the first ones to tell you about all the significant differences between the Uzi and the Thompson. And that is why the Uzi pretty much eclipsed every existing SMG when it came out in more or less the same way the MP5 replaced the Uzi across the board years later.
But let's try not to get sideways over a counterfactual, it's not as important as say a discussion on Kurosawa films.
Zero impact. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing...
Are you seriously asking us to quantify the impact ON WW2 of slightly improved short range weapons, issued to VERY small number of troops many of which are support guys or tankers who have bigger guns to kill with...
Its kind of like asking to quantify the impact of Glocks being issued vs the M9 as the US sidearm in the context the Iraq and Afgan wars - totally irrelevant.
This is just a dumb proposition, now its up to you to take a deep breath and admit that - and move on, or you can continue digging in because you are emotionally invested.
Yes, I was asking what difference it would have made (if any). I don't think it would have changed outcomes because things as revolutionary as the Stg45 and Me262 failed to change an "outcome."
But just as those things didn't change the war, they did have an impact on the war in some theaters. And I'm just pondering if a .45 Uzi on crappy little Pacific islands fighting the Japanese in jungle campaigns might have had a similar impact with the guys carrying Thompsons and Reisings.
I'm not imagining a scenario where we decide we can take Berlin before the Russians get there simply because we have Uzis.
Moose-Knuckle
08-06-14, 20:26
I just wished I could take a Conex container full of Kalashnikovs, PKMs, RPGs, mags, and ammo to the Alamo.
Zero impact. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing...
Are you seriously asking us to quantify the impact ON WW2 of slightly improved short range weapons, issued to VERY small number of troops many of which are support guys or tankers who have bigger guns to kill with...
Its kind of like asking to quantify the impact of Glocks being issued vs the M9 as the US sidearm in the context the Iraq and Afgan wars - totally irrelevant.
This is just a dumb proposition, now its up to you to take a deep breath and admit that - and move on, or you can continue digging in because you are emotionally invested.
I agree that it would have zero effect.
I just wished I could take a Conex container full of Kalashnikovs, PKMs, RPGs, mags, and ammo to the Alamo.
You may someday get your chance the way this country is devolving. ;)
Moose-Knuckle
08-06-14, 20:51
You may someday get your chance the way this country is devolving. ;)
Well I didn't mean The Battle of the Alamo 2.0 . . . . BUUUUUT is it getting that way.
I just wished I could take a Conex container full of Kalashnikovs, PKMs, RPGs, mags, and ammo to the Alamo.
I like the cut of your jib. Just got a mental image of someone yelling Texas! from the ramparts.
http://www.imfdb.org/images/d/d5/RedDawnWOLVERINES.jpg
As a kid, I would fantasize about taking an M60 back to the American Revolution along with about 3000 rounds of ammo. Sounds crazy I know but something has to pre-occupy the mind of a 3rd grader.
wildcard600
08-06-14, 21:06
I guess I've never heard that the Thompsons mags were so unreliable. I had an M1 in semi auto and used a lot of milsurp mags and never had any more mag related failures than any other semi auto carbine I've used.
That aside I doubt there would have been much of a difference if any. the exception possibly being with any troops that were issued the 1928 model Thompson vs the M1 pattern. The 1928 model with its Blish lock was known to be problematic if not properly maintained/lubed.
As a kid, I would fantasize about taking an M60 back to the American Revolution along with about 3000 rounds of ammo. Sounds crazy I know but something has to pre-occupy the mind of a 3rd grader.
Ha, that is too funny....I did the exact same thing! But my fantasy usually involved a Colt 639 Commando with moderator.
I think it would have had zero effect on the outcome. But, I believe we would likely still be using the full-size UZI, errr M3, chambered in 9mm today. I realize that to some degree there have been Greaseguns chambered in 9mm in use during Gulf War I (and maybe even to present day), but I think had the UZI been the M3 it remain in current inventory and be in much more widespread use.
One aspect that would have been sweet is even wider circulation of UZI parts, specifically barrels. I wish I'd bought more than three spare barrels for my Vector full-size UZI SMG when they were available. If it were US military issued, I think the spare parts would still be flowing like wine and instinctively flocking like the salmon of Capistrano.
I guess I've never heard that the Thompsons mags were so unreliable. I had an M1 in semi auto and used a lot of milsurp mags and never had any more mag related failures than any other semi auto carbine I've used.
The reliable magazine comment really was a reference to the single feed grease gun magazine more than the Thompson. The advantage of the Uzi over the Thompson is a smaller package due to the telescopic bolt, a couple pounds of weight saving and I suspect a more reliable SMG in the jungle.
But we are now talking about PKMs at the Alamo so let's go with that.
I think it would have had zero effect on the outcome. But, I believe we would likely still be using the full-size UZI, errr M3, chambered in 9mm today. I realize that to some degree there have been Greaseguns chambered in 9mm in use during Gulf War I (and maybe even to present day), but I think had the UZI been the M3 it remain in current inventory and be in much more widespread use.
One aspect that would have been sweet is even wider circulation of UZI parts, specifically barrels. I wish I'd bought more than three spare barrels for my Vector full-size UZI SMG when they were available. If it were US military issued, I think the spare parts would still be flowing like wine and instinctively flocking like the salmon of Capistrano.
And THAT is how you do a counterfactual. Thank you for pondering the possibilities.
But, I believe we would likely still be using the full-size UZI, errr M3, chambered in 9mm today. .
No way, Congress likes to buy new stuff.
Here's a great book on some things that truly made a difference during WWII.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Allies-Won-Richard-Overy/dp/039331619X
I'd be willing to bet that the plastic grip panels and for-end of the UZI would be made of wood since plastics weren't used in the American firearms industry in the 40's. I'm curious as to how that would effect the overall weight of the gun (And I bet it would look pretty good like that too).
Also, is that your own personal UZI Steyr?
I think as gun people we overemphasize the importance of small arms in twentieth century conflicts.
I've enjoyed shooting other people's submachine guns for about 40 years. The Thompson is my favorite. I love it. That said, I don't see that using any other .45 sub gun would make any difference. One reason is that mastering the sub gun requires much more time and effort than are spent in qualifying. Another is that the sub gun's role in our military has been marginal at best. So the expert sub gun user would likely have had zero effect on achieving military objectives.
Even with my age and arthritic condition, I can still do some fancy stunt shooting with a handgun. I used to do the same with the Thompson while playing in gravel pits. In both cases, it was stunt shooting, and the ability to stunt shoot is not a requirement to be an accomplished shooter in combat.
I'd be willing to bet that the plastic grip panels and for-end of the UZI would be made of wood since plastics weren't used in the American firearms industry in the 40's. I'm curious as to how that would effect the overall weight of the gun (And I bet it would look pretty good like that too).
Also, is that your own personal UZI Steyr?
They would be bakelite in all probability. And no that isn't my personal Uzi, although I have an IMI original.
I think it would have made a small difference in the Pacific campaign. Many of the Marines were still using 1903s so the advantage of the Garand wasnt there. The Uzi would have been cheaper to produce than the Thompson and therefore could have been given out in greater numbers to the Marines. More short range firepower could lower the number of Marine casualties.
Both of my grandfathers were in the Pacific theater in WW2. One was a Marine engineer who was in several of the big name battles. He carried a 1903 and talked about how much better that SMGs were in the jungle. Unfortunately he passed before I could ever have any really good conversations about the war with him. My other grandfather was security forces for the Army Air Corps. He said he much preferred the M1 Carbine to the Garand of the Thompson due to weight.
I think it would have made a small difference in the Pacific campaign. Many of the Marines were still using 1903s so the advantage of the Garand wasnt there. The Uzi would have been cheaper to produce than the Thompson and therefore could have been given out in greater numbers to the Marines. More short range firepower could lower the number of Marine casualties.....
Pretty much exactly what I thought when reading the original post.
Not a game changer in the large sum of things,, but cheaper to produce than a Tommy and so far beyond a M3 or Reising, it's not even funny.
And of course the increased mag capacity, vs the basic 20rd. mags for the Thompson.
That being said, proposing fighting the Jap/Nazi hordes with any SMG BUT a Thompson is sheer small arms heresy right there...
;)
MountainRaven
08-08-14, 00:18
I feel like introducing the Uzi SMG in lieu of the Grease Gun to the time stream would have had about as much of an impact as introducing the M4A3E8 Sherman tank in 1942 in lieu of the M3 Grant/Lee: It might make a small difference every now and again, but in the big picture it would not have made much difference at all.
I just wished I could take a Conex container full of Kalashnikovs, PKMs, RPGs, mags, and ammo to the Alamo.
I read a short story set on Deep Space Nine's holosuites featuring O'Brien and Bashir taking a shot at Santa Anna before the Battle of the Alamo. Short version is that Santa Anna decided to skip the Alamo and crushed Sam Houston's army. Then went back and sacked the Alamo and Texas remained part of Mexico.
The lesson being that sometimes you need to lose a battle to win a war (see also: Thermopylae, battle of).
As a kid, I would fantasize about taking an M60 back to the American Revolution along with about 3000 rounds of ammo. Sounds crazy I know but something has to pre-occupy the mind of a 3rd grader.
You should read Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove: Time-traveling South African slave traders basically give the Army of Northern Virginia circa 1862 thousands of Kalashnikovs and probably millions of rounds of 7.62x39mm ammunition.
I think it would have made a small difference in the Pacific campaign. Many of the Marines were still using 1903s so the advantage of the Garand wasnt there. The Uzi would have been cheaper to produce than the Thompson and therefore could have been given out in greater numbers to the Marines. More short range firepower could lower the number of Marine casualties.
Both of my grandfathers were in the Pacific theater in WW2. One was a Marine engineer who was in several of the big name battles. He carried a 1903 and talked about how much better that SMGs were in the jungle. Unfortunately he passed before I could ever have any really good conversations about the war with him. My other grandfather was security forces for the Army Air Corps. He said he much preferred the M1 Carbine to the Garand of the Thompson due to weight.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that despite the shear numbers of Thompsons evident in the hands of Marines that it wasn't actually part of any USMC TO&E. And many of the Thompsons the Marines used early in the war were M1928s and M1928A1s, originally ordered for use guarding mail carriers, in China, and the Banana wars. In fact, while many photographs of Army soldiers in Europe show M1 and M1A1 Thompsons, there is a photo that's quite famous of Marines fighting on Okinawa with a Thompson-armed Marine who is using an M1928A1.
So I don't know that it would have had much of an impact early in the Pacific, either.
Moose-Knuckle
08-08-14, 02:11
I read a short story set on Deep Space Nine's holosuites featuring O'Brien and Bashir taking a shot at Santa Anna before the Battle of the Alamo. Short version is that Santa Anna decided to skip the Alamo and crushed Sam Houston's army. Then went back and sacked the Alamo and Texas remained part of Mexico.
The lesson being that sometimes you need to lose a battle to win a war (see also: Thermopylae, battle of).
Sound logic and as a fellow Trekkie I agree. It was the anger from the butchering of the men at the Alamo that aided in the routing of Santa Anna and his army (which was the largest standing army in the world at the time).
Sound logic and as a fellow Trekkie I agree. It was the anger from the butchering of the men at the Alamo that aided in the routing of Santa Anna and his army (which was the largest standing army in the world at the time).
I still think US Marines running around the Pacific theater with a M42 (M3) Uzi would be awesome. Make for some spectacular B&W photos. Instead of Marines facing Banzai charges with dual 1911s, they really could go dual Uzi's Chuck Norris style.
http://www.autoweapons.com/photosv/greenuzib.jpg
How does this change the war
It seems the consensus is it would not have changed the war, maybe a new question is would we have had fewer casualties?
As a kid, I would fantasize about taking an M60 back to the American Revolution along with about 3000 rounds of ammo. Sounds crazy I know but something has to pre-occupy the mind of a 3rd grader.
We've all done that, after I toured the Normandy area I thought about what it would have been like if I had landed with my M2A2 Bradley company. An extremely capable vehicle but still venerable to enemy fire. I imagined it would have been a protected asset during the daylight and then let loose to do what no one else could, hunt at night.
Magic_Salad0892
08-09-14, 01:58
I have a better counterfactual:
The War Dept. leaves John Garands original design as is chambered in a .276 Penderson cartridge, and the War Dept. changes from a 10 round clip to a 20 round box magazine, and we have the M14 20 years early.
How does that change the war?
Magic_Salad0892
08-09-14, 01:59
The sear on my computer malfunctioned, and went full auto. Delete.
I just wished I could take a Conex container full of Kalashnikovs, PKMs, RPGs, mags, and ammo to the Alamo.
What I could have done with that back then. :neo:
I read a short story set on Deep Space Nine's holosuites featuring O'Brien and Bashir taking a shot at Santa Anna before the Battle of the Alamo. Short version is that Santa Anna decided to skip the Alamo and crushed Sam Houston's army. Then went back and sacked the Alamo and Texas remained part of Mexico.
The lesson being that sometimes you need to lose a battle to win a war (see also: Thermopylae, battle of).
I too read that. I used properly, not just a static defense, they could have taken out the vast majority of the his army. With the stand-off of the PKM (they had nothing even close) they could just shot and relocate until his army was gone....or they ran out of ammo.
wildcard600
08-09-14, 15:13
I have a better counterfactual:
The War Dept. leaves John Garands original design as is chambered in a .276 Penderson cartridge, and the War Dept. changes from a 10 round clip to a 20 round box magazine, and we have the M14 20 years early.
How does that change the war?
probably still wouldn't change much. now take that garand back to 1914......
Moose-Knuckle
08-09-14, 15:49
I still think US Marines running around the Pacific theater with a M42 (M3) Uzi would be awesome. Make for some spectacular B&W photos. Instead of Marines facing Banzai charges with dual 1911s, they really could go dual Uzi's Chuck Norris style.
I'm sure you've seen it, do remember this scene in We Were Soldiers Sgt. Major Plumley?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlOxiwGLAkY
He chose a 1911 to counter human wave attacks as he felt the M16 was BB gun, wowsers!
Moose-Knuckle
08-09-14, 15:50
What I could have done with that back then. :neo:
I too read that. I used properly, not just a static defense, they could have taken out the vast majority of the his army. With the stand-off of the PKM (they had nothing even close) they could just shot and relocate until his army was gone....or they ran out of ammo.
There is a lot of HELL YEAH in this post!
MountainRaven
08-10-14, 01:11
I'm sure you've seen it, do remember this scene in We Were Soldiers Sgt. Major Plumley?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlOxiwGLAkY
He chose a 1911 to counter human wave attacks as he felt the M16 was BB gun, wowsers!
The real CSM Plumley was carrying an M14 that day, IIRC.
ETA: Here are a couple of my counterfactuals:
1-What if Heinz Guderian were born in, say, Bismarck, North Dakota instead of Kulm, West Prussia? Would the Christie chassis have become the basis of an American T-34?
2-What if the government had in 1936-38, instead of seeking to buy a long gun for support troops and seeking to streamline logistics going into the Second World War, sought a - let's say they would call it a machine carbine, a select-fire rifle utilizing an intermediate 30-caliber short cartridge - for general issue to the troops? Would they have developed an entire family of weapons chambered for this cartridge? Would the M1 Garand have immediately been moved into the province of a marksman's and sniper's rifle?
3-What if Werner von Braun had been born in the US instead of Germany? Would the US have developed "short" range ballistic missiles and deployed them during the war and - if so - would the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been delivered by ballistic missile and not by B-29?
Of course, only one of these has anything to do with guns, so....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.