The Best Caliber for WWII

So what would've been the best caliber for WWII with the benefit of hindsight and modern knowledge about bullet and cartridge design?
>inb4 5.56
Hard no because it would suck out of a machine gun and most fighting in WWII happened between hostile groups of infantry where the machine gun reigned supreme.

I assume the best possible caliber would be one that is as small as possible to ensure the least amount of recoil for rifles (even automatic or semi-automatic rifles, since we're time-travelling anyway already) while still being an effective machine gun cartridge.
But what would that be?

Pic barely related, I think it's neat but neither the full length nor the kurz version of the 8mm Mauser fit the bill. The normal version got an unintentional upgrade later when they switched to cheaper ammo because the reduced lead amount necessitated a longer bullet which caused it to have a superior BC and fit the twist of the rifling better, but it's still far away from what would be ideal and has way too much recoil.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It would have been 5.56

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/MuocpLQ.jpg

      So what would've been the best caliber for WWII with the benefit of hindsight and modern knowledge about bullet and cartridge design?
      >inb4 5.56
      Hard no because it would suck out of a machine gun and most fighting in WWII happened between hostile groups of infantry where the machine gun reigned supreme.

      I assume the best possible caliber would be one that is as small as possible to ensure the least amount of recoil for rifles (even automatic or semi-automatic rifles, since we're time-travelling anyway already) while still being an effective machine gun cartridge.
      But what would that be?

      Pic barely related, I think it's neat but neither the full length nor the kurz version of the 8mm Mauser fit the bill. The normal version got an unintentional upgrade later when they switched to cheaper ammo because the reduced lead amount necessitated a longer bullet which caused it to have a superior BC and fit the twist of the rifling better, but it's still far away from what would be ideal and has way too much recoil.

      >Hard no because it would suck out of a machine gun and most fighting in WWII happened between hostile groups of infantry where the machine gun reigned supreme.
      Enjoy getting raped by enemy MGs, anon.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        having an LMG chambered in 5.56 means that the squad level automatic can be smaller, lighter, and more mobile

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It also makes it much less useful for controlling space, which is the main purpose of an MG. Plus, being outranged by a squad of russians with nuggets wouldn't just be dangerous on the planes of vodkaland, it would also be embarrassing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then you kill them with artillery, aircraft, or armor. Small arms are nowhere near as important in real life compared to everything else.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >then you do things irrelevant to the discussion which make the discussion moot
              Are you autistic?
              Aside from the fact that small arms obviously had a notable impact, nothing you wrote holds any value because they're outside of the parameters of the thread.
              That's like saying people should've just focused on jets when somebody makes a thread about the best possible air cooled engine of the 30s.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Are you autistic?
                yeah

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It also makes it much less useful for controlling space
            the reduced range of 5.56 compared to increased ammo capacity, reduced felt recoil, and reduced mass of the gun is almost always a good trade off, which is the literal reason they switched from M60 to the M249
            intermediate rounds were absolutely destroying full-sized rifle rounds in trials, which was what informed their decision to switch away from the M14
            the israelis, armed with .30cal FALs and MAGs, were failing to achieve fire superiority against the egyptians armed with AKs, which was what convinced them to switch to their own intermediate rounds

            there is a reason that the modern set up is to leave the .30cal machine gun at platoon level with the MG section and have all the squad-level machine guns with 5.56 or similiar

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >the reduced range of 5.56 compared to increased ammo capacity, reduced felt recoil, and reduced mass of the gun is almost always a good trade off,
              For a rifle, not an MG.
              We're looking for a round that can do both reasonably well since supplying 2 different kinds of calibers during WWII is stupid.
              >there is a reason that the modern set up is to leave the .30cal machine gun at platoon level with the MG section and have all the squad-level machine guns with 5.56 or similiar
              The modern setup where, anon? Guns like the MG3 are still incredibly far spread and it's not just inertia that's keeping them around, which is why the MG5 is in 7.62 as well.
              It's not the modern setup in plenty of western countries and the US had so many issues with 5.56 that the NGSW actually had a real result for once after every attempt in the last 60 years.

              Your entire post reads like you took a couple of factoids and built your entire opinion around it despite like 30 seconds of research making it all sound ridiculous.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >For a rifle, not an MG.
                for an LMG, having the squad machine gun be more compact and have more ammo would allow them to be more mobile

                >Guns like the MG3 are still incredibly far spread and it's not just inertia that's keeping them around, which is why the MG5 is in 7.62 as well.
                MG4 has been their squad-level machine gun since the 2000s
                the MG5 is replacing the MG3 for commonality in parts, but the MG4 will remain the squad-level automatic

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >for an LMG
                GPMG > LMG
                Dumb, dumb.
                >MG4 has been
                You realize that more than one country uses the MG5 and a lot more than one country uses the MG3, right?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >GPMG > LMG
                GPMGs are now mostly used by the dedicated machine gun section while LMGs are used at the squad level for increased mobility

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The whole point is to avoid having to supply too many different kinds of ammo and now you wanna not just supply another cartridge, you also want to supply yet another machine gun.
                Why the hell would you want to stress WWII logistics like that for no good reason?
                WWII era squads also had to be able to handle way more situations without support due to much worse communication and a lack of modern artillery, air support etc.
                You can't just say "but it works in a modern context" without taking that modern context that makes it work in the first place into account, anon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >WWII era squads also had to be able to handle way more situations without support due to much worse communication and a lack of modern artillery, air support etc.
                a soviet rifle squad replacing their DP-28 with a belt-fed intermediate round machine gun would be nothing but a net-positive in almost any situation, not least because they could hold more rounds in the same drum

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Now you're not talking about what would be the best option but whether 5.56 would be better than the historical option, anon.
                The question isn't "would it be better" (which is debatable in the first place since it would get them absolutely massacred by German MGs with superior range and thus zones of control), it's "would it be the best possible option."

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >(which is debatable in the first place since it would get them absolutely massacred by German MGs with superior range and thus zones of control)
                now youre making things up, because the ability to maneuver and fire is far more important than range, especially since individual squads are the ones least likely to ever need the increased range

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >now youre making things up, because the ability to maneuver and fire is far more important than range,
                Covering fire is what allows a squad to maneuver in the first place you silly c**t. And squads tended to work together for that.
                Greater zone of control = greater ability to maneuver.

                This is just plain moronic. Kalashnikov was the one who realized that nearly all combat happens within 300 meters with the vast majority of it happening within 100 yards. That was the inherent problem will full powered cartridges being used in the fire and maneuver tactics of WW2. If the SKS had been the standard infantry weapon of soviet troops it would have been more legendary than the M1.

                >This is just plain moronic. Kalashnikov was the one who realized that nearly all combat happens within 300 meters
                Stopped reading there, no he was not the one. What kind of zigger fuddlore is that?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >supplying 2 different kinds of calibers during WWII is stupid
                >America
                30-06
                30 carbine
                >USSR
                7.62x54
                7.62 tok ( the Soviets had nearly as many SMGs as the rest of the world combined by the end of the war)
                >Italy
                6.5 Carcano
                8×59mmRb Breda
                >Japan
                7.7 nip
                6.5 nip

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >30-06
                >30 carbine
                >7.62x54
                >7.62 tok
                Those are all the same caliber, anon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                .45 for the tho.pson and grease gun plus pistols in.45

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is just plain moronic. Kalashnikov was the one who realized that nearly all combat happens within 300 meters with the vast majority of it happening within 100 yards. That was the inherent problem will full powered cartridges being used in the fire and maneuver tactics of WW2. If the SKS had been the standard infantry weapon of soviet troops it would have been more legendary than the M1.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      fpbp
      M1 carbine worked into a proto-Mini-14 would be the ultimate small arm of the 40s

      [...]
      >Hard no because it would suck out of a machine gun and most fighting in WWII happened between hostile groups of infantry where the machine gun reigned supreme.
      Enjoy getting raped by enemy MGs, anon.

      sorry, is the premise of the thread "you can't use ANY other bullets"? because it sure doesn't say that in the OP

      obviously .338 BARs (4 per squad) fill in the capability gaps

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >sorry, is the premise of the thread "you can't use ANY other bullets"?
        The premise is to find the best caliber for WWII, if it can't serve well for MGs, which were more important than rifles, it's a shit cartridge.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          a squad armed with assault rifles in 5.56 and LMGs in 5.56 would achieve fire superiority over squads armed with full sized rounds

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >tries to assault any position with enemy MGs utilizing full sized cartridges and no handy obstacles to obscure sight around
            >dies before he's able to fire a single useful shot of 5.56
            Wow!

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              having lighter machine guns with more controllable full auto that dont need to be exclusively fired from the bipod or the hip is way better for achieving fire superiority at the squad level
              the extra range on full sized rounds is more of a concern for the MG section, but fire superiority is the absolute king for individual squads

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >having lighter machine guns with more controllable full auto that dont need to be exclusively fired from the bipod or the hip is way better for achieving fire superiority at the squad level
                >*dies*
                >the extra range on full sized rounds is more of a concern for the MG section, but fire superiority is the absolute king for individual squads
                Oh, so you wanna introduce a separate cartridge AND a separate machine gun just for those?

                https://i.imgur.com/AQeG9Ph.jpg

                you're a clown. .30-06 and 7.92 are already well-suited for machine guns. 5.56 (or any low-weight intermediate cartridge), on the other hand, would be a massive improvement in infantry small arms.

                Can't be the best caliber if it doesn't serve both, schwoogie.

                >supplying 2 different kinds of calibers during WWII is stupid
                >America
                30-06
                30 carbine
                >USSR
                7.62x54
                7.62 tok ( the Soviets had nearly as many SMGs as the rest of the world combined by the end of the war)
                >Italy
                6.5 Carcano
                8×59mmRb Breda
                >Japan
                7.7 nip
                6.5 nip

                >hey guys what if I mention all those countries who regretted making the mistake I want to make, that's a great justification for it, right!
                lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it's really obvious that you don't know what you're talking about fyi

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's really obvious that you're a smarmy redditor who couldn't write a masculine coded sentence if his life depended on it "fyi"
                Get some testosterone injections you disgusting gimp.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >masculine coded sentence
                this is the kind of phrase you only hear from boys who've never fricked a woman. are you a virgin anon

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >dies*
                the reduced range on 5.56 compared to .30 really does not matter anywhere that isnt a wide open desert, literally 9mm is able to close the distance and engage rifles and machine guns in WW2
                having the entire squad uniformly outfitted with assault rifles and LMGs would easily defeat a squad armed with bolt-actions and a full-caliber LMG

                >Oh, so you wanna introduce a separate cartridge AND a separate machine gun just for those?
                not that big of a deal, since belted ammo is incompatible with clips and mags to begin with
                only time machine gun section and rifle squad sharing ammo would matter is if they have the time to take ammo and manually insert them into the belts in the field
                but 5.56 would actually simplify logistics because riflemen armed with an assault rifle could replace both the riflemen and submachine gunner
                while the machine gunner has a portable, handy, weapon that can be fired from both the shoulder and from the bipod

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the reduced range on 5.56 compared to .30 really does not matter anywhere that isnt
                The entire eastern front, where the majority of fighting took place in WWII
                >desert
                You mean like north Africa?
                lmao
                Stopped reading there, I have defeated you already.

                >masculine coded sentence
                this is the kind of phrase you only hear from boys who've never fricked a woman. are you a virgin anon

                I'm married.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm married.
                then why are you here acting like a little shit?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The entire eastern front, where the majority of fighting took place in WWII
                7.62x39 was literally invented by the soviet experience in WW2, which was that a majority of firefights took place at close range and where huge amounts of automatic weapons trumped everything else
                which is why the soviets mass produced SMGs, because fire superiority often trumped range, and the intermediate caliber allowed for fire superiority without a huge loss in range

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The soviets mass produced SMGs because their rifles sucked. They weren't meant to replace machine guns and couldn't, they were meant to replace their garbage rifles. All of that also happened with the background of machine guns present that could actually compete in their range with German MGs.
                Take those away and the Germans immediately get a massive advantage and massive opportunities for new tactics simply because the soviet infantry would have had no way to organically suppress any MG position on an open field or at an elevated position.
                And since you seem to think trusting in what the soviets thought was the right solution, ask yourself:
                If you are right why did the soviets continue to use more powerful ammo for machine guns during the world war?
                The very people you try to tout as an authority in your abortion of an argument didn't agree with you, anon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The soviets mass produced SMGs because their rifles sucked.
                + they couldn't produce (and supply) enough machine guns
                SMGs were a good compromise but they also had some obvious limits to their application, especially outside of cities and the like. That's why you didn't see nations that could've actually afforded to make pure SMG divisions (like the US) do it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                soviets were literally the first to replace their squad-level MGs with intermediate caliber LMGs after the war, because for the purposes of squad-level firepower the smaller machine gun is superior in almost every way
                full caliber machine guns were then relegated to their dedicated machine gun section, and pretty much every one else did the same thing

                a WW2-era squad with the same setup would immediately notice the benefits of more compact machine guns and would obsolete their BARs, brens, and type 99s pretty much overnight

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >who regretted making the mistake
                Then why did every single one of these countries transition to using multiple calibers (some before others) after the war?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's not what transitioning means, they were already using multiple calibers.
                And I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding not just simple English words, but also the frame of the conversation.
                And if you genuinely want to argue that fielding multiple calibers in WWII wasn't completely moronic I invite you to read up on the Japanese and Italian ammo situations in particular to learn something very basic.

                >I'm married.
                then why are you here acting like a little shit?

                >guy called me wrong without backing it up
                >I called him a homosexual
                >(You) (hopefully not the same guy samegayging) gets upset and tries to call me an incel
                Holy shit Black person it's a PrepHole post, calm the frick down. Nobody cares.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                nobody who gets laid as much as they want starts shitraking threads like this. either you're lying about the wife or that pussy is not adequate

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >anon is too dumb to understand the thread or normal relationships
                Sorry to hear that, little guy. Talking from experience?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              If you're assaulting an entrenched enemy position over open ground with no cover, what the frick does it matter what cartridge either side is using?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you're a clown. .30-06 and 7.92 are already well-suited for machine guns. 5.56 (or any low-weight intermediate cartridge), on the other hand, would be a massive improvement in infantry small arms.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    30-06

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Pick your loadout. I'll have the four handguns. Strap them to my chest, pirate style.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    155mm

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No fun answer would be something already in either 7.92 or 7.62/.30 cal to reuse existing tooling and ease mass manufacture.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >No fun answer
      It can be lots of fun if you use those cartridges as a basis for a modified round.
      Think 7.92k but much less radical to find a good middle ground. Maybe something around Grendel levels bang.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    6.5x55 Swede

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That one's cool as frick but the design was already outdated by the time of WWII.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How was it outdated?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ignore that, I was thinking of another cartridge.
          What the frick was the point of 7.62 when Scandinavia had already solved the issue?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    9x18
    It's gotta be, killed way more nazis than muh 45

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Something along the lines of .280 British.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Holy frick that's ugly
      Great performance though, why'd they wanna stick to 7.62?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    6.5x55.

    Which is what they should move to right now as well.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Take 7mm mauser tooling and make a Kurtz version.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wouldn't that be overkill?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    imagine being the guy who gets to carry 4 lugers

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      2 are for throwing, by pulling the slide all the way back with a full mag you can prime them to serve as grenades.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >what would be the best GP cartridge for WW2
    >no intermediate cartridges though
    I don't know why you needed a thread for this op you could've figured this one out on your own

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >no 5.56 means no intermediate cartridges
      Are you moronic? If you need a cartridge that works for both rifles and MGs you're gonna have to find the sweetspot between intermediate and full power cartridges, which would make it either a big intermediate or small full power cartridge.
      The Grendel is an intermediate cartridge. Why would you embarrass yourself like this instead of just not posting anything?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you knew what the correct answer was given the criteria of the question, QED

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >you knew what the correct answer was given the criteria of the question, QED
          You think "something between an intermediate and full power cartridge" is a sufficient answer?
          I'm sure it's correct and I mentioned it in the OP. But you don't seem to realize how useless that answer is. That's like me telling you you'll die somewhere between the age of 20 and 100.
          >QED
          Don't use Latin if you never learned Latin, it's unbecoming.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What the heck?
    Why are they giving one guy 4 pistols?

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Miniature garands, bars and 1918s in 556

    Unstoppable

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *