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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’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).
