Ha ha too funny

there you go!

Yeeesssss!

Now That is funny.

What about a Tommy gun in 5.56? Or in 30-06/7.62 NATO?

Wait you said under 11 pounds. We thought you said under one hundred and eleven pounds

No one in particular Auto Ordnance: But the recoil would be lower on this 10 pound gun nooooo!!!!

@@bennettfender1546 with Thomson rate of fire?

Why are you running? Why are you running?

Thomposon: "Oh five POUNDS? Whoa whoa I thought you said Five KILOGRAMS!"

Wow i never knew that! Thats awesome, thanks for the info.

I never heard anything about that, but in my headcannon the Thompson used in the New Order was the "Thompson M1946".

It would've made more sense if they'd just issued the more affordable M2 Carbine..

@@OptimisticAsparagus96 Maybe not. You have to consider a few factors: First, that the Thompson was still in mainline use by US and British troops, it's the weapon they were familiar with, and in widespread production and with spare parts. Consistency is not unimportant. Secondly; The Thompson is heavier than the M2. This isn't always a bad thing. The M1 and M2 are not meant as frontline assault rifles, they are meant as essentially upgraded sidearms for truck drivers, squad leaders, mortarmen and anybody else who doesn't have a rifle as their primary weapon. The .30 Carbine Thompson gives you a more durable design which can serve longer as an actual frontline weapon in more harsh combat conditions, which is a better choice for arming fewer but more troops than the cheaper but flimsier M2 which would be better for mass-issue to rear-echelons and support personnel. Personally, if I were designing the world I would've given the Allied troops a whole new "Assault Rifle" because the US would've certainly had the industrial capability to rapidly develop and adopt one, probably a scaled-up M1 Carbine, chambered in a cut-down .30-06 similar to the 8mm Kurz. I'm imagining a fictionalized Ruger Mini-30 chambered in .300 Blackout, in terms of its overall appearance and dimensions.

@@HellbirdIV I question the idea that the .30 carbine Thompson would be more durable than the M2 carbine--it was effectively just blowback operated, while the M2 actually had a locked breech, meaning that its action would be subjected to greater wear than that of the M2. Also, in war, a lot of materiel just ends up getting destroyed or captured anyway, so reducing that loss is another reason to go with the cheaper gun. There are reasons why the Thompson was fairly quickly phased out and this version never even went anywhere, after all. Also, In real life, the M1 carbine ended up in front-line use during WWII and the M2 had largely replaced the Thompson by the time of the Korean War, despite the fact that this wasn't the original intent of the M1 carbine, because it and the M2 were still sufficiently tough while being cheaper. Then again, in the Wolfenstein canon, the Allies lost, so, in that context, it makes sense for them to have made the mistake of using this version of the Thompson and not the M2 carbine.

Little do they know ian is the museum

Yeah wonder if it's more controlled in full auto than the m2 carbine

Just so you know, this is the only prototype in existence

Rambonii probably much more controllable considering the weight alone.

@@Rambonii im sure it is

It’s an intermediate cartridge. Anyone who says pistol round is just repeating fudd lore. It’s a replacement for the 1911 just like a Glock is a replacement for pepper spray. That doesn’t mean a Glock = pepper spray. _____________ 110 grain .30 caliber round @ 2000 fps = pistol round But 110 grain .30 caliber round @ 2200 fps = .300 blackout the best cartridge ever developed. It’s 98% of the muzzle energy of 5.45x39, but it’s a pistol round. Got it. _____________ They traded 200 fps and about 20 yards of point blank range, for an assault rifle that weighed 5 lbs instead of 10. Not much of a trade off when you’re surrounded by semi auto 30-06 rifles. The US never adopted a cartridge like the 7.62x39 for a reason. The same reason the soviets abandoned it. They replaced the carbine round with 5.56.

@@-John-Doe- except the .300 BLK makes alot of sense considering its BC is also better and has heavier grain bullets.

@@darrengarcia4937 It makes a lot of sense over half a century later after the light rifle project developed into the AR15 with modern materials - Aluminum, Polymer - and a very high pressure cartridge. It works if you already designed the AR15 and 5.56... but it’s not going to replace the 5.56 for a reason - the same reason intermediates weren’t adopted - the same reason the .30 carbine wasn’t compromised to be something it’s never intended to be, or .300 blk will ever be. You have to know precisely what the design parameters are for the firearm. Shortening the OAL of the cartridge is necessary for lightening the firearm and ammunition, and for logistics purposes. This is the entire purpose of the T65/ eventually 7.62 NATO replicating .30-06 M2 Ball in a short action. Smaller firearm, smaller magazines, etc. You _could_ sacrifice the design for a slightly higher BC and 20-25 extra yards of point blank range... but the United States military wasn’t interested in that at all. Just like the US military was never really interested in submachineguns - the Thompson was pressed into service and the M3 grease gun was designed to fit the niche as cheaply as possible.

@@-John-Doe- there is a big issue with your argument. The reason intermediates werent adopted was because of the stupidity of the US Aquisitions. We decided on the 7.62 NATO round contrary to better performance out of the .280 and .270 british. You cant paint the US as a all-knowing and correct benchmark when they have a history of making stupid decisions. I.E. the M14, 7.62 NATO, Incorrect ammo types and cleaning kits for the M16, the terrible mods done to the M16A2, the M249 mag adapter.

@UCCoTBHMhI4wxaPknjDHh07Q because it was better in literally every way. Only reason the Russians cant is the fact that they are so poor. A stockpile of inferior 7.62x54 weapons and ammo from the USSR days keeps their army as a army. Its hard to change your vintage with a GDP like that. We could have done it in the 50s but we had stupid people in charge that stuck with the 7.62 NATO and M14 instead of the FAL or EM2 in .280 even though both rifles and calibers were better in testing than the .308 which the US tried to hide the evidence of. Only took a bunch of dead troops to realize how big of a pos the M14 was and to field the M16 even though they even tried to sabotage the 5.56 and M16.

Unfortunately, it was only used in the first level.

@@justincholos.balisang6884 waited the while game for it to return :(

@@alexjones8239 yeah I loved it

Really liked the design of the Thompson Carbine of that game Shame it only lasted 1 level

It does not even have its own ammunition nor even placed in secret areas of levels. Hell after the new order it was reduced to nothing more than a background prop before again being reduced to non existent, and the German replacement was nice. However it's close but no cigar. Even in 2019, the pre order bonus was a complete cop out with only merely skins of the allies.

Sure, but it wasn't adopted, and it was decades after the first such guns that were also not adopted.

If we're going to those lenghts, the Russians had the first ever, the Fedorov Avtomat.

Forgotten Weapons ahhhh okay i was mainly saying for the us and if it had been adopted. I understood it wasnt or wed have more and you would have done a video on it

it was full auto, and the russians classified 6.5 arisaka as an intermediate cartridge

+Robbie Dickson The Soviets never even thought of the concept of an assault rifle, though. In Soviet infantry doctrine, there were submachine-guns and rifles, nothing in between. And there's more to it than just a fancy name, the Soviets simply employed those weapons as rifles (and the AKs as SMGs). This also reflects in Soviet marksmanship training, the AK-47 was expected to be used at far lower ranges than the cartridge and the weapon actually permit, everything beyond that was meant to be engaged by "sharpshooters" (in US terms that specific role would be a marksman).

Agreed. And with a shorter barrel several inches short, like the Grease gun.

Well they did build something else that actually met the contract.

Fat fingers

Probably disliked that Ian didn’t get to shoot it. Would actually be fun to see it vs the M1A1 Thompson in a match.

I've thought the same thing. If it worked reliably there would have been a logic to switching to a .30 SMG and phasing out the .45 Thompsons. It would simplify the ammunition supply, since they'd only need small amounts of .45 for pistols, and the .30 Carbine rounds are quite bit lighter than the .45. I imagine they were scrambling to produce enough weapons at the time they didn't want to interrupt the production lines.

Charles Inglin​ But would it kill as well as a 45? At short range with a center mass shot, probably not. It just seems almost insulting that nobody in the military even test fired it after Auto Ordinance went to the trouble of designing and building a prototype.

.30 Carbine virtually identical to .357 magnum other than the diameter, so yes, it would kill a Nazi just fine. Especially if it were full auto.

Is it going to be controllable though? By itself, a .30 carbine is not hard to handle, but what about when being fired at 700 rpm?

.30 Carbine and .45 ACP aren't all that different in recoil. .30 is probably going to be a touch snappier, but it's a 12 pound gun, it'll be fine.

Very good timing!

Indeed, what a coincedence.

Yeah hahahaha

Mayur I just finished watching Ahoy's Thompson video. 😀

I was about to say the same. I always suspected that the Thompson in Wolfentein: TNO was chambered for something longer than a .45 ACP. It also shoots from a closed bolt.

Yes, and it was also because the 45.ACP wasn’t making it through German armour

But it contains 40 rounds Is it possible for that mag to fit 40?

@@guts-141 if they changed the mag to double stack then 30-40 would be perfectly doable

@@derpcon4212 Quad stack 😎

Except you would be complete ignoring the contemporary American military doctrine with it's emphasis on individual accuracy as opposed to Soviet dedication to massed fire, which you see later in the development of the Armalite vs. Kalashnikov rifles.

So you're saying that the thompson in 45 acp meets that doctrine and a Thompson in 30 carbine wouldn't?

The Thompson was adopted because US military early in WW2 suddenly felt the need of a SMG without having a purposedly designed gun. Had they had the same vision as the Russians, they would probably have mass-produced the Reising SMG: equally effective but lighter and much cheaper.

I have no argument with any of that. All I'm saying is that a Thompson in 30 carbine, with almost no recoil, a very high capacity magazine and twice the velocity of the 45 acp, may have been more effective than one in 45 acp, especially at medium ranges.

What about the M2 carbine?

😅

Sadly, no. This is the only prototype in existence. They rejected the carbine due to high manufacturing cost. The US at that time is not in war yet, but they're slowly entering.

Closest you can get is Wolfenstein The New Order first level It's a nice gun

You should go to ForgottenWeapons.com and search for "light rifle". I have a whole bunch of pages on all the entrants.

+Forgotten Weapons Thanks Ian, will do! sounded interesting which such high capacity for the time :)

Anthony Williams I knew i saw this weapon before, but i couldn't remeber where i saw it

+secondswell the game was based in an alternate future where the nazis were winning,I remember that the magazine looked longer like the one here,I suppose that the advantage of various parts being interchangeable may have made them opt to adopt this weapon at that point to get the guns out there quicker than whole new m1 or m2 carbines from scratch,so could fit with the lore of the game that it was a last ditch to get guns in the hands of soldiers as fast as possible

Wolfenstein the new order?

i hope they make new wolfenstein game with the resistance fight the nazi with this thompson submachine gun. chambered in .30 carbin that have been enhanced with da't yichud technology

@@T0rrente18 why would you use a 30 cal Thompson with da yidcut technology and not nazi weapons which is better than 1940s weapon technology

Savage Carbine, Woodhull carbine, Garand carbine, Hyde Carbine, Browning carbine, Bergman Carbine, Reising carbine

www.forgottenweapons.com/light-rifle-program/

JoeCatshoee hickock 45 has one.

It's at a museum, not for sale.

As a formally accredited museum, they cannot shoot items in the collection.

Forgotten Weapons who made that rule? That sucks :(

.30 Carbine is about 3 times as powerful as .45 ACP so it wouldn't surprise me if it had more recoil. If my memory is correct I think one of the figures on .30 Carbine shows that at 100 yards it's as powerful as a .357 Magnum (which has slightly more muzzle energy than .45 ACP) at the muzzle.

So it would have been an atrociously recoil heavy gun and probably would have failed the trials even if it was half the weight? lol

No, I would think you should be comparing it to the recoil of the other .30 -Carbine chambered guns. Whether or not this had worse recoil than the original .45 version, isn't the point. The fact it was so much heavier than the Army's requirement, means it should have significantly LESS recoil than any of the other submissions, which were light enough to meet the specification. Now of course, that's just talking about weight generically. In reality, it's not that simple, because distribution of the weight in a different longer-barreled gun, would make up some of the difference in terms of recoil (and/or muzzle climb, i.e. "angular momentum"), since the Thompson was notably short overall.

Yes thats a good point. I think for the thompson its the type of recoil versus the severity of the recoil due to the weight distribution. It may kick the same as the other guns in the trial but im sure it was a lot harder to keep on target due to the rise etc

3 times more punch than a .45 ACP means about what, 1500 Joules/1000ft.lbs at the muzzle..? That would put .30 carbine in between a 7,92x33 Kurz and a 7,62x39 in terms of muzzle energy.. More like twice as powerful.. And a typical .357 Mag 158gr load out of a 6" barrel puts out about 650-700 Joules/500ft.lbs at the muzzle which is about 200ft.lbs more than a .45 ACP 230gr fmj out of a 5" barrel... Thats almost twice as much energy not slightly.. And that's mathematics applied in physics not an opinion :)