Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: A question about the T10/T23E1 light machine gun?
marat,jean    6/24/2013 8:41:33 AM
I've come across some information that the US Army just before WW II were testing machine guns to replace both the Browning automatic rifle and the the Browning medium machine gun as both weapons were considered too heavy for the squad infantry tactics the Americans wanted to use. Apparently this weapon(See photo below) was one of the candidates, but was rejected as it weighed too much? At 13 kilograms it weighed too much? This is ridiculous. What was the true reason?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
marat,jean       6/24/2013 8:44:02 AM
 
Any information would be appreciated. Thank you.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl D.       7/1/2013 4:29:03 AM
T10:
 
 
T23E1:
 
 
Started in collaboration between Colt, High Standard and Auto-Ordinance.  Picked back up in 1943 by Springfield Armory.  Weighed 26.65 lbs.
 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/1/2013 12:10:59 PM
Thank you. Feed failure was it then.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl D.       7/2/2013 12:58:59 AM
According to the Springfield Armory Museum web page, the reasons were a change and confusion in what the Army wanted and the weight of the weapon.  The failure to feed issues during testing was apparently more an issue of the testing staff not being briefed on the operational nuances of the weapon or ignoring those instructions.
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/19/2013 11:40:56 AM
[T]he reasons were a change and confusion in what the Army wanted and the weight of the weapon.
 
The failure to feed issues during testing was apparently more an issue of the testing staff not being briefed on the operational nuances of the weapon or ignoring those instructions.
 
This is so stupid a pair of reasons that it defies belief.
 
 
Put into limited production as a modification of the M1919 A4, it was supposed to provide a GPMG unit until the Americans could develop a better postwar model either on the T-24 or some other (predecessor of the M-60) projects they had. The T-24 was an engineering failure that would have required either the Americans to adopt a different bolt design to handle the higher impulse energies in their service ammunition. The M1919 A6 at 33 pounds was a heavy and clumsy (as in not being well balanced or robust) configuration that hindered the user-soldier even more than the M1919 A4. Cosmetics do not substitute for human factors design. Even the T-24 (MG 42) got that part wrong, while the T-23 managed to shoqw a solution that was profoundly prophetic.
 
The T-23E1, if it was indeed 25 and 1/2 US pounds, was about as heavy as either the T-24 and the MG-42 and could be walked forward by one man in support of a squad assault. The  T-24 Saginaw copy of the MG-42  could not be so carried, neither could the MG-42.
 
The suggested failure reasons for the  T-24 was the cartridge was too powerful, or the designer who reverse engineered the MG 42 failed to produce a weapon that could handle the lower quality American ammunition (head space issues?) which was often out of dimensional tolerance, etc. . Based on what I know from the American experience with the HS 404 auto-cannon, I suggest that the ordnance 'experts' involved were unclear as to the exact tolerances and chamber pressures required of the operating cycle for a 30,06 service cartridge. The genius of gun-makers is that they repeat and repeat their work on a series of failed function models they bench-test (LSAT?) until they find the exact mix of dimensions, slippage, and fits in the moving parts so that the operating cycle smoothly functions with the intended cartridge they chose for the weapon. 
 
If the T-23 was close, and the evidence suggests it was much closer than the T-24 to a final 30,06 cartridge solution, then the Americans should have persevered until it worked. In appearance, it looks very much like a belt-fed Bren gun, that carried the belt in a can that slid into and locked under the weapon so that it could be walked forward by one man.
 
 
 
 
????????????????????
 
Mister Ruger appears to have left a lasting successful impression on somebody.
 
The excuse was that war was upon them and the Americans didn't have the time to sort this weapon out?
 
I very much think the Americans should have examined and perhaps criminally prosecuted the idiots in charge of their small arms development programs, much as they should have prosecuted the criminals responsible for their pre world war two artillery ammunition, fusing, and torpedo weapon program failures.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/19/2013 11:50:14 AM
The T-24 was an engineering failure that would have required either the Americans to adopt a different bolt design to handle the higher impulse energies in their service ammunition.
 
That should read:
 
The T-24 was an engineering failure that would have required either the Americans to adopt a different bolt design to handle the higher impulse energies in their service ammunition [or a specialized depowered 30,06 cartridge that could provide the roughly equivalent working gas pressures of a Mauser 7.92x57 mm German service cartridge].
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Well then it would have been    7/22/2013 1:42:18 PM
bolt re-design.  One of the beauties of the US Small Arms Program was the inter-changability of BAR, Garand, Browning Machine Gun ammunition. 
 
A de-powered 30-06 would have been an extra burden for the logistic system, and fraught with the peril that you'd have hundreds of rounds of unusable ammunition in the event of a "Foul-up."  Either full power 7.62 X 63 when you needed low-power or hundreds of rounds for the Machine Gun, but you needed Garand ammunition.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/23/2013 2:43:53 PM

 
The development of a depowered cartridge would have led to this.
 
Perfectly feasible for the Ruger T23E1 and for an American assault rifle based on the M-1 Carbine.
 

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Not so much an ARGUMENT   7/23/2013 2:59:16 PM
as a statement...a low-powered 7.62 x 63mm is just an administrative non-starter....the US Army loved the 30-06 and wasn't going to easily give it up, and wasn't going to have TWo 7.62mm/.30 caliber weapons in the rifle section....one a LOW power and one a Hi power, just too much risk of foul-ups.....
 
And certainly in the midst of WWII it wasn't likely to have adopted an entirely new cartridge for widespread/universal service, certainly not one based on a variant of the Carbine round.
 
Yeah I think the US/NATO missed the boat in not adopting the British .280 caliber/7mm round for the EM-1/2.  But I am pretty certain that if the US Army was going to forgo the .280 it was going to forgo any other round, suggested earlier, in the midst of a global war.
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/23/2013 3:40:50 PM
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics