How much would that cost? The No 5 used existing tooling v a brand new (to UK) M1.....that's also a semi-auto and therefore more expensive and complicated I think a Sterling SMG is more reasonable?
Army equipment that should have seen service
- Thread starter Bougnas
- Start date
Would have been much better than what came later!!!! In the longer term, a TOW launcher could have been fitted similar to that on the Bradley!!!
marathag
Banned
Offhand, I'd say the SMLE had fewer machining steps as a M1 Carbine. One was made with easy mass production in mind, the other wasn't that changes that outlook.
M1 Carbine was around $45, but for cost of machines are under Lend Lease, so UK would be getting a real bargain after the war.
So with that math in mind, would be even cheaper than the Sterling. PDW > SMG
I dont think the n4 or n5 are lacking in being made for mass production compared to say the old SMLE rifle they descended from they have a lot of easier to make features so will be cheaper than most semi autos especially early machined ones like the m1?
Well yes if you can get it as a gift from US it makes sense.
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
Let us look at that.
a. was there a need for a carbine? or other < 200 meter semi-auto weapon? (Yes.)
b. did Britain have one? (STEN, maybe?)
c. Was a lightened SMLE a solution? Somebody thought it was; probably for Burma. For a similar gonzo solution that seemed to work, try WWI when the Germans needed some kind of answer to Wally light machine gun hunter killer teams who were whacking their MG08 nests on the western front in 1915/16 with the HK teams using Lewis guns and Chauchats (Some 70,000 Chauchats per 1917!). The Germans took their 70 kg Spandau (with sled, and actually DMW.) and lightened that joker to about 19 kgs, and put it on a bipod, so it could be lugged around more easily (about 150,000 MG08/15s!). Traded some accuracy and some bullet spitter ability for a lighter load and the ability to move through terrain dodging Wally HK teams. Did it work? In Burma the "carbine" sort of "worked". Had problems, but was less cumbersome than a full battle rifle and used a pre-existing machine tool setup, OS, and ammunition line.
d. Does the M1 carbine meet c. requirements? Important to consider the logistics of an entire different parts and bullet line.
e. Would a hotted up Baretta clone MP38 in 9/19 have answered the c. example?
f. Sterling might have been. If I had my druthers, the UK/US might have gone BRNO 100% ATL with squad, light, medium, and GPMGs. (ZB383 as the SAW, Cz. Vz.30 (Bren for UK, Win. M38 US.) CZ. vw. 53 (BESA for UK, Win. M39 for US) and the ZB50 (M1936 US). I am of the opinion that the bullet lines in existent Wally ammunition lines were possible since the Czechs seemed to have figured out to tune guns better than anyone else on earth at the time.
g. costs? About the same as other LL gear.
h. refer to c. .
i. again refer to c. .
j. The M1 carbine does not have to built in Britain. Think of the Pattern 14 of WWI.
Ramontxo
Donor
So for what I have read the one issue with the M1 carbine was its crap magazine. Now the UK say gets it (and its machinery) under Lend/Lease and make it for the RA but with a magacine derived from that of the BREN. After the war they pay the 10% residual value and kept it instead of the Sterling . Experiments are made for a new caliber and bullet but they are not ready for the Korea war. ETC...
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
That sounds like a track problem/solution test default regime. It might have more to do with the sensors and missile/radar/FCS interface than the ability to hit anything. A cheap predictable ballistic profile that is repeatable might be necessary for a point defense missile to calibrate against for example. During course of testing it "should" be able to hit a repeatable predictable ballistic object. Sort of like a Rolling Airframe Missile against a 5" shell. Does that mean effective against a Skyhawk maneuvering at less than 100 m above the wave top "floor return" and against background hill radar return clutter? Apparently... maybe. Things on a test range are nothing like combat. That is why I wanted to read the test reports.
A major problem with the whole: Roland, Blowpipe, Sea Worf, Sea Slug, Swingfire, etc. AAA missiles is that the enemy has a vote.
The enemy rarely receive the battle plan on time.
Enemy rarely read the battle plan.
Enemy rarely follow the battle plan.
Any weapons procurement program is - at best - an educated guess at where, when, how, why, etc. the next war will be fought.
The enemy rarely receive the battle plan on time.
Enemy rarely read the battle plan.
Enemy rarely follow the battle plan.
Any weapons procurement program is - at best - an educated guess at where, when, how, why, etc. the next war will be fought.
marathag
Banned
GI original mags were mostly fine. Postwar high cap magazines are where the problems were at
@wiking
M1 and M2 Carbine (Self-Loading Carbine(s) Nos.1 and 2?) in .270 (6.8 × 46mm) British perhaps?
ETA: Or would that even work, with the latter at about 150% of the energy of the former?
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
1. A bigger rocket is a function of volume log increase in size. It takes the form of how big a motor you want to throw that larger shaped charge. Think of it as a quarrel bolt with a sponge for a shaft and you try to throw it from a crossbow. You won't be too far off from the stability and physical dynamics of your WWII bazooka. The bigger and heavier that head on the quarrel bolt, the bigger the problem in the throw.
2. Cage and slat armor on tanks was tried.
3. The 3"/50 was a monster of an HV gun. So big that the M6 tank was built around it. Took a loader and an assistant loader. Tank all up weighed 60 tonnes. Load speed and mass of platform were own goals. Better to use a 9.0cm gun and built a chassis under that as was done; eventually.
4. M1 Garands could evolve into Baretta BM50s. As with the BAR, it could prove to be too much gun for the human being. 30.06 is a POWERFUL cartridge that requires 4-point not 3 point ground platform stabilization. Even a tripod mounted machine gun (4 point) has muzzle wander in full auto.
5. Flimsy mags are a perennial problem unless one is BSA.
1. Keep Colt and GM away from any reverse engineering problem and the gunsmiths of Remington, Winchester and FORD can make it work as they understood METRIC.
2. Use the Browning action. Even Colt knew how to make that run with 20mm FFL or Oerlikon shells.
Would necking the .30 carbine round down to .22 work, and would it be a step too far in the 1940's?
Deleted member 1487
Absolutely not. The gas tappet system and the construction of the rifle wouldn't be able to handle the power of that sort of cartridge.
You'd need to redesign the whole thing to get there. Which Winchester did:
W.A.R. – the Winchester Automatic Rifle
www.forgottenweapons.com
Winchester should have approached Britain with their design, citing the advantages of using a common ammo:
Winchester model 30 - Wikipedia
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 1487
It did work. It worked better in .19 cal though. Probably would be a step too far for the brass of the day, but the thought in that direction already existed in 1930:
The 1930 Report that Changed the World- Sort of - Everyday Marksman
Dr. R.H. Kent's 1930 report titled The Theory of The Motion of A Bullet About Its Center of Gravity In Dense Media, With Applications to Bullet Design
www.everydaymarksman.co
Last edited by a moderator:
marathag
Banned
The trick with the 2.76" was they made warhead as heavy as they could, while the propellant would be finished burning before it left the tube as to not burn the operator.
Bigger warhead, more propellant, longer burn time, and you add a shield like with the 3.5" or Panzerschreck
Deleted member 1487
What shield?
M20 Super-Bazooka - Modern Firearms
M20 Super-bazooka, right side view M20a1B1 Super-bazooka, left side view M20a1B1 Super-bazooka, barrel disassembled Firing M20 Super-Bazooka Caliber 89 mm / 3.5” Type Rocket launcher Overall length 1524 mm Weight 6.5 kg empty 5.9 kg empty (M20B1) Max. effective range ~300 meters Armor...
modernfirearms.net
I also recall reading of the Sea Wolf successfully intercepting a 4.5" shell during a test.
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
What shield?
M20 Super-Bazooka - Modern Firearms
M20 Super-bazooka, right side view M20a1B1 Super-bazooka, left side view M20a1B1 Super-bazooka, barrel disassembled Firing M20 Super-Bazooka Caliber 89 mm / 3.5” Type Rocket launcher Overall length 1524 mm Weight 6.5 kg empty 5.9 kg empty (M20B1) Max. effective range ~300 meters Armor...modernfirearms.net
The tube was lengthened to meet burnout parameters. That is why no shield and why I did not mention the time of burn problem as opposed to stable throw.