Rearm the British Infantry for WWII

[ArtosStark]

Though the calibers suggested so far are all good ones, IMHO changing caliber is only really a viable option if it is done in the 20’s. Between the Depression in the early 30’s and the tension with first Italy and then Germany in the late 30‘S, it’s not a good time for the disruption that comes from the switch. You can manage it in the 20’s. Though to be honest I wouldn’t bother. IMHO the slight advantage of the various rounds is not worth the trouble. I would just stick with the .303. The .276 is the only one I would possibly make an exception for, but I have read conflicting reports as to it’s viability.

Pistols have a very limited effect in combat but I would still go with the Browning Hi-Power. Possibly if Britain is more firmly committed to the French alliance, they might try to encourage Belgium to remain in alliance with France? Buying arms (or more likely arms licenses) could be part of the carrot?

And while you are there, if you jump on FN 37 prototype early enough, and partner Enfield with Saive in creating the British SLR, you could end up with something like the SLEM (in whatever caliber chosen) a few years early.

If Britain is on top of the SMG question then I think the BSA-Kiraly is the best option. If they are not and are looking for a SMG post FOF then I would go with the old AH standby and try to speed up adoption of the Owen gun.

A belt fed version of the Vickers K could possibly fill the spot of the WW1 Vickers gun, but to be fair, the old Vickers Gun did its job very well in WW2 as well.

I don’t know exactly how or what would be the best system, but better boots are always a force multiplier for infantry.

I haven’t heard a lot of specific complaints about the trucks used to haul infantry around, but that might be an area to improve? Something like the CMP trucks developed earlier and issued as standard?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I know the two countries were close, but would the French have allowed the British to adopt the round for free? They might as well develop a close-enough knockoff.

Well if it became an issue then call it 7.5 x 54 Imperial

But I am sure that the French would be happy with this obvious 'letter of intent'

 

[marathag]

The British Army was overall the most modern in the world in 1939.

But not in personal kit or logistics

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The British Army was overall the most modern in the world in 1939. It was the only fully mechanised army and it's only problem was it was always going to be third inline behind the Navy and RAF for money and manpower

Didn't really help them win though. Mechanization is helpful of course, but that is hardly the only metric of modern.

 

[yulzari]

Buy the Browning instead of the BESA so the .30-06 is available in country and they can develop a select fire, box fed magazine rifle perhaps based on the already developed Pedersen action.

But why 30-06? Britain was not looking for more power in small arms ammunition. A new continental war was bound to have Britain and France acting together so it made sense to look to maximise logistical supplies across the British and French armies. The 7.5x54mm French round is perfectly adequate for the task required. By comparison with converting the ZB26 to .303" rimmed in imperial patterns it would be far easier to convert the ZB26 and 53 to the rimless 7.5x54mm and buy metric tooling. Ready to roll much faster.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

And if they are on the defensive? You hold fire until the enemy is less than 100m away?

I’d love to see your source that the Sten was more effective than rifles out to 200m.

In Korea US operations research found that effective rifle fire only happened within about 100m anyway. Only BARs and MGs were able to extend the range of effective fire thanks to the cone of fire they produced.

I have some other papers than the one mentioned by dandan noodles that substantiate the claim that that is what British research demonstrated during WW2, though out to 200 yards not meters, but IIRC that was for snap shots and suppressive fire, which was basically all that was being taken on the attack when trying to close the distance as rapidly as possible and under the cover of artillery suppressive fire. It was also claimed by British research that the Sten was as effective as the Bren out to 300 yards, though I'm pretty dubious about that.

If they're on the defensive, riflemen should also hold fire until close range, since the greater weight -> smaller round count and incredible difficulty of hitting a man beyond 100m with a rifle makes it mostly a waste of ammunition. Much better to stay concealed 1-200m behind a reverse slope, then blast the enemy with heavy surprise fire as they silhouette the ridge.

Source is The British Army and the Politics of Rifle Development, page 118, citing War Office documents of tests conducted by the army on the effectiveness of different infantry weapons.

That is what they claimed yes, but remember they were measuring in yards, not meters, so the distances were actually a bit shorter. At that point the M1 Carbine was a better option as it could be used effectively out to 200 yards without an issue while infantry could carry a ton more ammo than .303. Additionally with some practice the M1 could be used out to 300 yards effectively, though the ballistics weren't great and I'd doubt that it would be more than suppressive fire at that range in combat conditions or hoping that the mass for rapid semi-auto fire from several carbines would result in a hit. Weight of unit fire vs. individual marksmanship. Honestly though a 6.5mm or even 6mm M1 Carbine with a Spitzer bullet would have done the job very well.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

But why 30-06? Britain was not looking for more power in small arms ammunition. A new continental war was bound to have Britain and France acting together so it made sense to look to maximise logistical supplies across the British and French armies. The 7.5x54mm French round is perfectly adequate for the task required. By comparison with converting the ZB26 to .303" rimmed in imperial patterns it would be far easier to convert the ZB26 and 53 to the rimless 7.5x54mm and buy metric tooling. Ready to roll much faster.

In terms of the Browning the .30-06 would be for the tank corps as it was cheaper than the BESA to make even if the ammo was a big larger. Getting extra .30-06 from the US would be quite easy rather than making a non-standard (for the Brits) 8mm Mauser cartridge and hoping to capture German stocks in the field. Then the infantry could use a shortened .30-06 case to make an intermediate cartridge for a semi-auto rifle or a select fire assault rifle.

Converting to French 7.5mm by 1934 would be WAY too expensive. The time to do that was in the 1920s before the Great Depression. Frankly though they should have just adopted the .276 Pedersen cartridge and rifle and converted the Bren to that, but again that was a 1920s/pre-1932 decision to make. 1934 is too late based on the cost, but if cost wasn't a problem then I still say in terms of performance .276 Pedersen all day every day. The logistical advantages of standardizing with the French are so minor as to be pointless for that reason by itself.

Though I do get your point about the 7.5mm conversion for the Bren, but then converting to .303 was never a problem IOTL, so it wasn't that big a deal. Frankly at that point if you want to be that conservative, just adopt 8mm Mauser and buy the ZB26! You can use captured German ammo then and standardize with the Czechs and Poles. Plus it make using captured German weapons easier. It was in part why the Brits adopted 9mm Luger for their SMG despite buying Thompsons in .45 en masse as fast as they could.

 

[fastmongrel]

But not in personal kit or logistics

In 1939 the British Army Battle Dress was very modern it was modelled after Woolen Ski and Mountaineering suits very popular at the time. It was cheap, easy to make very economical in its use of cloth and the German and US Armies copied many of its items and designs. It was a bit baggy and didnt look as cool or as good for slaughtering innocent people as the German Army kit but then the German uniform had to be tailored to fit, all the kit items hung off a leather belt and the helmet was like wearing an oven on your head. From personal experience wearing it when I was a cadet in the 70s (the MOD had about a gazillion items of Battle Dress in store) it was comfortable though itchy for someone not used to wearing wool, it was a bit too warm for summer use but fine for Spring or Autumn. You had to wear braces and a belt or the trousers would fall around your ankles and I never got the hang of the anklets they either slid all over the place when marching or cut the circulation to your feet the puttees issued later were much better.

Boots from what relatives told me were horrible until they broke in but they were everlasting so I suppose for the army they were succesfull. When I joined as a regular I mostly wore my own boots for everything apart from parades because the issue DM boots were made of special materials that didnt keep the rain out but kept the sweat and odours in

The P37 webbing was also very modern designed so troops could get in, sit in and get out of vehicles easily it was modular it could be worn in a vast number of ways from simple belt and shoulder strap for a Pistol to full on everything your Sgt can think of, though all were uncomfortable to someone used to modern load carryingsystems. It was a bit too modular though I remember if you adjusted one strap to for example stop your water bottle bouncing against your backside something else on the other side would be too slack or too tight, you adjusted that and your load carrying pouches would be hitting you in the chin you got them right and your water bottle would be bouncing against your backside

I didnt wear the MkII helmet so cant comment but I suppose it stopped the rain running down your neck.

Logistics not my area but the British Army moved its stores by ship, rail and motor vehicle everyone else moved its stores by rail and hayburner. Even in 1941 the German Army had ten times as many Horses as it did motor vehicles. Interesting factoid when the British Army got rid of its last horses in iirc 1936 the German Army bought them all so its possible some of the horses in Operation Fall Gelb were ex British.

 

[fastmongrel]

Didn't really help them win though. Mechanization is helpful of course, but that is hardly the only metric of modern.

It probably meant that the majority of the British Army was able to get out of France. we have to remember the BA was tiny compared to the French and German armies. In May 1940 the Germans had iirc 140 divisions the French about the same the British Army was supposed to have 18 divisions but some were not up to full strength and some in Britain were no more than recruitment and training units that would have not been able to stand against the Swiss Navy.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

It probably meant that the majority of the British Army was able to get out of France. we have to remember the BA was tiny compared to the French and German armies. In May 1940 the Germans had iirc 140 divisions the French about the same the British Army was supposed to have 18 divisions but some were not up to full strength and some in Britain were no more than recruitment and training units that would have not been able to stand against the Swiss Navy.

If you look at the details of the retreat to the coast that was more a function of Hitler and Rundstedt panicking about their success and held back troops until it was too late to trap the BEF.

Given the size of the British+French armies added to the Belgian and Dutch the Germans were handily outnumbered and most of their divisions weren't exactly 1st rate. The one area that the Germans excelled, which ultimately won them the campaign, was their air force. WW2 was very much an air war first and foremost and whomever had air superiority usually won. Had the Allies spent less on their navies and more on their air forces along with a better doctrine of integration with their armies they should have won in 1940.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

In 1939 the British Army Battle Dress was very modern it was modelled after Woolen Ski and Mountaineering suits very popular at the time. It was cheap, easy to make very economical in its use of cloth and the German and US Armies copied many of its items and designs. It was a bit baggy and didnt look as cool or as good for slaughtering innocent people as the German Army kit but then the German uniform had to be tailored to fit, all the kit items hung off a leather belt and the helmet was like wearing an oven on your head. From personal experience wearing it when I was a cadet in the 70s (the MOD had about a gazillion items of Battle Dress in store) it was comfortable though itchy for someone not used to wearing wool, it was a bit too warm for summer use but fine for Spring or Autumn. You had to wear braces and a belt or the trousers would fall around your ankles and I never got the hang of the anklets they either slid all over the place when marching or cut the circulation to your feet the puttees issued later were much better.

Boots from what relatives told me were horrible until they broke in but they were everlasting so I suppose for the army they were succesfull. When I joined as a regular I mostly wore my own boots for everything apart from parades because the issue DM boots were made of special materials that didnt keep the rain out but kept the sweat and odours in

The P37 webbing was also very modern designed so troops could get in, sit in and get out of vehicles easily it was modular it could be worn in a vast number of ways from simple belt and shoulder strap for a Pistol to full on everything your Sgt can think of, though all were uncomfortable to someone used to modern load carryingsystems. It was a bit too modular though I remember if you adjusted one strap to for example stop your water bottle bouncing against your backside something else on the other side would be too slack or too tight, you adjusted that and your load carrying pouches would be hitting you in the chin you got them right and your water bottle would be bouncing against your backside

I didnt wear the MkII helmet so cant comment but I suppose it stopped the rain running down your neck.

Logistics not my area but the British Army moved its stores by ship, rail and motor vehicle everyone else moved its stores by rail and hayburner. Even in 1941 the German Army had ten times as many Horses as it did motor vehicles. Interesting factoid when the British Army got rid of its last horses in iirc 1936 the German Army bought them all so its possible some of the horses in Operation Fall Gelb were ex British.

Yes - the Pattern 37 webbing was the worst webbing in the world at the time....apart from all the others.

 

[Crowbar Six]

The STEN is more effective than the rifle out to 200m, when 80% of combat takes place under that range. Even if they had rifles, if they're not within 100m, they shouldn't be shooting in the first place, just advancing under the MG's covering fire. The SMG makes them much more effective within the footsoldier's actual combat ranges.

I think your definition of effective isn't the same as anyone else's. 9mm Para used by the British Army was a effectively the Mk2z 115gr bullet fired from a 7.5" barrel the British Army didn't consider it effective beyond 100yrds and using the word accurate and Sten in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

 

[von Adler]

Pistol: Browning HP 35 in 9x19.
SMG: Suomi KP-31, later replaced with a variant made for mass production, similar to the Swedish K-pist m/45, in 9x19.
LMG: Bren in .276 Pedersen.
HMG: Vz.37 in .276 Pedersen.
Rifle: SMLE No.4 in .276 Pedersen. Rifle grenade attachments available.
Mortar: Stokes-Brandt 3" (81mm).
Heavy mortar: 120mm Tampella.
Infantry anti-tank: Boys AT rifles and nagnetic shaped charges early war and PIAT by mid-war.
Light AA: 20mm Oerlikon/Polsten.
Medium AA: 40mm Bofors.
Light AT gun: 47mm Böhler (this one also replaces the 2pdr as main tank armament early war). Another option is 37mm Bofors, but the Böhler is equally light, penetrates a bit more and have a slightly heavier (if still light) HE shell.
Medium AT gun: 6pdr.
Heavy AT gun: 17pdr.

The squad deploys 12 man strong, with 2xLMG, 2xSMG (for the squad leader and his assistant), 2 scoped rifles and 6 rifles. Each man carries 2 magazines for the LMGs and basic infantry tactics is to divide the squad into two equal parts that advance by leapfrogging with LMG fire support. In defence they deploy to be able to lay down crossfire with the LMGs.

 

[Mike D]

But not in personal kit or logistics

I reckon the German QMs still trying to keep their units supplied using panje wagons right up until the end of the war might have preferred the British Army's logistic system. It might not have been perfect but it was a hell of a lot better than most.

 

[Crowbar Six]

Though the calibers suggested so far are all good ones, IMHO changing caliber is only really a viable option if it is done in the 20’s. Between the Depression in the early 30’s and the tension with first Italy and then Germany in the late 30‘S, it’s not a good time for the disruption that comes from the switch. You can manage it in the 20’s. Though to be honest I wouldn’t bother. IMHO the slight advantage of the various rounds is not worth the trouble. I would just stick with the .303. The .276 is the only one I would possibly make an exception for, but I have read conflicting reports as to it’s viability.

Pistols have a very limited effect in combat but I would still go with the Browning Hi-Power. Possibly if Britain is more firmly committed to the French alliance, they might try to encourage Belgium to remain in alliance with France? Buying arms (or more likely arms licenses) could be part of the carrot?

And while you are there, if you jump on FN 37 prototype early enough, and partner Enfield with Saive in creating the British SLR, you could end up with something like the SLEM (in whatever caliber chosen) a few years early.

If Britain is on top of the SMG question then I think the BSA-Kiraly is the best option. If they are not and are looking for a SMG post FOF then I would go with the old AH standby and try to speed up adoption of the Owen gun.

A belt fed version of the Vickers K could possibly fill the spot of the WW1 Vickers gun, but to be fair, the old Vickers Gun did its job very well in WW2 as well.

I don’t know exactly how or what would be the best system, but better boots are always a force multiplier for infantry.

I haven’t heard a lot of specific complaints about the trucks used to haul infantry around, but that might be an area to improve? Something like the CMP trucks developed earlier and issued as standard?

The guy who designed the Owen gun would have was born in 1915, he cooked up his prototype in .22 in 1938 when he was 23, the Owen gun despite bearing his name was a much different weapon to the one he originally designed and didn't enter service until 1942 IOTL, if the designs quality was recognised early enough it might be in service in 1940-41. It was more expensive than the STEN (anything is more expensive than the STEN) but was a lot cheaper than the Thompson M1928 (£200 a copy in 1940!) it was also virtually mud and sand resistant.

 

[ArtosStark]

The guy who designed the Owen gun would have was born in 1915, he cooked up his prototype in .22 in 1938 when he was 23, the Owen gun despite bearing his name was a much different weapon to the one he originally designed and didn't enter service until 1942 IOTL, if the designs quality was recognised early enough it might be in service in 1940-41. It was more expensive than the STEN (anything is more expensive than the STEN) but was a lot cheaper than the Thompson M1928 (£200 a copy in 1940!) it was also virtually mud and sand resistant.

Crucially, he presented it to Australian Army Ordinance Officers in July 1939. It needed a lot of work then to become what it was in OTL but I believe the separated compartment in the action that gave it its near immunity to mud was present. If someone there had seen the potential that Vincent Wardell later saw, or Wardell found it earlier, that would have helped it along. It definitely would have helped if the army didn't keep changing what caliber they wanted it in. To get it into British service would still likely take it being presented to the British in a competitive form it time to butterfly the creation of the Sten. It would require a lot of fortune but it might be possible.

 

[Crowbar Six]

In 1939 the British Army Battle Dress was very modern it was modelled after Woolen Ski and Mountaineering suits very popular at the time. It was cheap, easy to make very economical in its use of cloth and the German and US Armies copied many of its items and designs. It was a bit baggy and didnt look as cool or as good for slaughtering innocent people as the German Army kit but then the German uniform had to be tailored to fit, all the kit items hung off a leather belt and the helmet was like wearing an oven on your head. From personal experience wearing it when I was a cadet in the 70s (the MOD had about a gazillion items of Battle Dress in store) it was comfortable though itchy for someone not used to wearing wool, it was a bit too warm for summer use but fine for Spring or Autumn. You had to wear braces and a belt or the trousers would fall around your ankles and I never got the hang of the anklets they either slid all over the place when marching or cut the circulation to your feet the puttees issued later were much better.

Boots from what relatives told me were horrible until they broke in but they were everlasting so I suppose for the army they were succesfull. When I joined as a regular I mostly wore my own boots for everything apart from parades because the issue DM boots were made of special materials that didnt keep the rain out but kept the sweat and odours in

The P37 webbing was also very modern designed so troops could get in, sit in and get out of vehicles easily it was modular it could be worn in a vast number of ways from simple belt and shoulder strap for a Pistol to full on everything your Sgt can think of, though all were uncomfortable to someone used to modern load carryingsystems. It was a bit too modular though I remember if you adjusted one strap to for example stop your water bottle bouncing against your backside something else on the other side would be too slack or too tight, you adjusted that and your load carrying pouches would be hitting you in the chin you got them right and your water bottle would be bouncing against your backside

I didnt wear the MkII helmet so cant comment but I suppose it stopped the rain running down your neck.

Logistics not my area but the British Army moved its stores by ship, rail and motor vehicle everyone else moved its stores by rail and hayburner. Even in 1941 the German Army had ten times as many Horses as it did motor vehicles. Interesting factoid when the British Army got rid of its last horses in iirc 1936 the German Army bought them all so its possible some of the horses in Operation Fall Gelb were ex British.

Back in the mid 90's my bosses son was training to be an Engineering Officer in the BA, they still had tables showing what could be carried by a "standard" pack animal ranging from donkeys and mules all the way up to Indian Elephants. I thought it was comforting to know that even though we live in an era of trucks and helicopters if someone needed to haul stuff by water Buffalo they wouldn't overburden the poor things.

 

[fastmongrel]

Armies dont like throwing things away I bet the Greek Army still has a manual on how to defend against Xerxes Persians

 

[yulzari]

Some stream of consciousness.

Good boots. I mean really good boots not just cheap indestructible ones.
Pistol. Why? Other than concealed for special purposes they have no place. So get rid of them.
So the default personal weapon is the SMG. Use 9x25 to make it a true 200m + weapon. MP34, ZK383 but with double feed lips.
Long arms standardise on 7.5x54mm French. ZB26 and ZB53 (or keep Vickers) for LMG/MMG. Arrange ZB26 production such that the platoon is stuffed with them i.e. as many of them as the SMG men can carry magazines for them.
Update SMLE and new production No4 to 7.5x54mm for reserve stocks and TA.
There is nothing in the PIAT that is not amenable to early use. HEAT heads can follow but the warhead with simple HE (or squash head) will do the job early on and is fireable from enclose spaces and in indirect fire. Anti tank rifles are one trick ponies.
Replace the ankle gaiters with short puttees.
Did I mention good boots?
Litre size water bottle.
The intended succession from 2 pounder through 6 pounder to 17 pounder would have been fine except for the (understandable) invasion scare so the plan was fine for A/T guns, had the delay been avoided.
Stop messing about with webbing set add ons. Make a proper rucksack to be worn over the webbing and discarded separately and fast.
A Gurkha acquaintance long ago queried why have a bayonet when a Kuhkri does all the field jobs far better and kills people better too. A better back up to the default SMG.
The 2 inch mortar was good but the 3inch heavy and short ranged so that needs attention.
Easy to say better radios but the technology of the day makes their use something of a skilled black art just to keep the ..**! things on tune. Just a smidgeon too early pre war to expect a simple reliable intra battalion lightweight set down to platoon level. But enforcing better radio discipline at higher levels would actually have more effect looking at the successes of German signals intelligence. Tactical radio contact with air forces from the ground requires a whole sea change in RAF doctrine which is not going to happen and a whole other thread.
From a morale point of view give the troops a decent hat when not wearing a helmet. One that looks good and stays on the head. The beret has a good track record.
The Battledress was excellent for it's day as was the basic webbing.
Oh, and good boots.

 

[Driftless]

How much consideration should be given to wearables for use in hot-dry desert climates and hot-humid jungle environments?