Rearm the British Infantry for WWII

[Capt Thunderbolt]

The problems the British Army had with its equipment was that development was halted for 6 months or more in the post Dunkirk panic. Once the French collapse the BA can't stay in France. To prevent the panic you need to rescue the equipment with the troops so somehow the British have to have a supply of Amphibious Warfare ships and landing craft to pull them off the beaches. So the post WWI planning will have to accept the lessons from the Dardanelles and recommend the purchase of the appropriate shipping.

If you want Amph ships, etc, you need a good sized marine establishment!

You need to RM out of capital ship turrets and back on their feet. The merge of RM Artillery and RMLI in ‘22, the RM lost direction. With a cap of 9,500, it could not do much, either.

In ‘35, you need the RM Div, as a full all-arms unit. Gunner stream with guns, and the LI stream in rifle brigades. Each RN base have a Defence brigade, with coastal guns, infantry and RMR to rapidly expand these units.

Combined with 35 NTA, (6 mth conscription then RMR), each formation, can be at 50% manning, easing pressure on budgets.

Considering much of the Landing Craft and above of GB were built in the US, RN can only expect modest Amph fleet units and minor craft.

Older passages ships converted to LSI, and USN style “assault destroyers” would be more realistic.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

So having followed the thread this is my choices for weapons and equipment ready for 1938

For Section and platoon

Rifle - Vickers-Pederson .276 Carbine (ammo provided in 10 round enbloc clips and supplied in Bandiolers of 50 rounds)
Gunners Assistant's rifle is equipped with a x 3.5 sharpshooters scope
LMG - Bren in .276 (ammo in 30 round magazines - 25 carried across section)
SMG - BSA Kiraly select fire 'machine carbine' in 9 x 25 Mauser - Section scout and Section Commander 9 x 20 round magazines (although limited numbers of 40 round mags initially provided - later very common)
Pistol - HP35 (Browning hi-power) - Supplied with Bren gun kit for the gunner and for AFV crews with 2 spare 13 round magazines and holster

At platoon HQ

Platoon Commander and Platoon SGT - Vickers-Pederson .276 Carbine or BSA Kiraly select fire 'machine carbine'
Platoon Runner - BSA Kiraly select fire 'machine carbine'
RTO - BSA Kiraly select fire 'machine carbine'

Anti tank team -
Boys Antitank rifle (your not getting a PIAT or Bazooka in 1938 - the tech for HEAT does not exist and the boys was one of the better ATRs) - but have a PIAT or Bazooka style system 'in the wings' even if just a dedicated grenade launcher for the type 68 AT grenade (not an adapted rifle)

Mortar team -
2" Mortar with 3 men (with 18 smoke and 12 HE) - nothing wrong with the weapons system as was

Not sure if the teams should be armed with the Carbine or SMG?

For AFV crews - each vehicle to be armed with 1 SMG and every man with a Hi-power and equipped with the RAC helmet (to be worn at all times)

Vehicle to be equipped with a boiling vessel and the loaders seat can convert to a 'water closet' - both to prevent the crew from having to dismount as often while on the front lines along with bigger 'non treasonous' hatches

Load bearing and protection - the Battle Jerkin with built in plate and the Type 3 tortoise shell helmet

Other weapons

The ZB53/BESA to be adopted as the battalion level MMG and AFV MMG in 8mm Mauser

The Vicker's to be re-chambered to 8 mm Mauser and to use the same metal belt as the BESA

The 3" (81mm) mortar to be improved earlier to allow for increased range - and production to allow 6 per battalion

25 pounder was a great gun system - my only change would be to allow for a split trail

Bofors 40/60 earlier for both Sea and ground forces as the principle light AAA

In Cryhavocs world the RAF adopts and developes the Oerlikon FFS cannon (20mm x 110) for its new interceptors and this weapon also becomes used as an early war light AA weapon for both the Army and Navy and becomes a common tri service AA weapon.

Sorry, I’m going to rain on your parade ☹

Vickers-Pedersen: the toggle is not sand friendly and waxed .276” is not a starter. IF Bren fires .276, doe it use non-waxed, or it very expensive Waxed -a logistic nightmare.

Kiraly, is difficult to mass produce. GB over engineered it’s SMG, till Sten and went the other way. 9x25mm is still firing the same bullet as 9x19mm, a little bit faster. The projectile has the same trajectory, just adding 25m in range. It falls off a cliff at 125m, instead of 100m.

Bren gunner rarely carried a pistol. It went when the Lewis gun went. HP35 is multiple time more expensive to made and train with. 3 x13 -39 rounds, that will sit in belt, instead of 12.

Vickers- 7.92 is longer than .303”. Sorry no

I better stop ✋ now

 

[marathag]

Vickers-Pedersen: the toggle is not sand friendly

Wasn't for the Garand, either.
Normandy, they had wraps for the action.

And even the wax may not have been that bad. Billions of 22 Rimfires have wax treated bullets, and that is far gummier than the dry wax Pederson did.

Want to know more?

 

[McPherson]

Wasn't for the Garand, either.
Normandy, they had wraps for the action.

And even the wax may not have been that bad. Billions of 22 Rimfires have wax treated bullets, and that is far gummier than the dry wax Pederson did.

Want to know more?

The wax making it through the gas system as a depositable is a definite hard no.

Murphy; that is a bolo.

 

[marathag]

The wax making it through the gas system as a depositable is a definite hard no.

Murphy; that is a bolo.

What gas system in the Pedersen?
In the Garand test, wax exposed to thehigh temps of the main smokeless charge, would probably combust. might be problem if the gun is never cleaned

Can't think of a 22 rimfire that uses gas operation where it would be a problem

 

[McPherson]

The M1. As for that !@# !@#$ed Pedersen, now that I have seen it expertly fired, I have at least three major issues , two ergo, and one engineering.

1. The sighting on the British made rifle is unacceptable.
2. Despite Gun Jesus, I know that toggle action, now that I have seen it operate, is a routine helmet knocker from the way the cheek has to weld to the stock to sight as seen.
3. Manufacturing waxed bullets and that complicated delayed blowback is a cost issue and it offers more mechanical fail points than the M1 Garand with dry ammo..

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

1. The sights would undoubtedly be simplified for ease of manufacture.
2. That's a matter of opinion and would soon be solved by proper training and experience if it was an issue.
3. Requires further development, and the Japanese actually managed to solve the problem by making it gas operated.

 

[McPherson]

But now one has the gas system and the soot problem.

 

[yulzari]

Points of note:

No matter how wonderful Britain is not going to buy it's weapons from foreign production for strategic and economic reasons. Make foreign designs at home yes.

There was no certainty that the USA would be an active ally and could well have been a determined neutral. However France would be a certain ally in a continental war. If Britain were to choose common ammunition and weapons it would be with France not the USA.

There was not the political will to entertain (or pay) for conscription in the UK in OTL no matter how desirable it might seem militarily.

Other ranks recruitment in the 1930s (save my father who saw it as a career) was not the plum job as seen in Germany and did not draw enough suitable recruits to transform the British army into a force of NCOs and junior officers in training like the German army. Rapid expansion would see gross shortages of experienced and trained capable NCOs and junior officers perforce, despite manful efforts by those who were so called upon. Conscription brought in a wider range of other ranks who eventually rose to the challenge to become competent NCOs and junior officers later on.

It is not just a matter of what weapons would be better but on whether they can be built in time in quantity. If one changed the rifle then it has to be done in time to arrive in quantity and, performance aside, the best reason would be to build one to 1930s production engineering standards and not 1880s like the OTL rifle. That alone would increase production greatly. The best investment would be in a modern machine tool industry which can then churn out the chosen items far faster, cheaper and with semi skilled staff. That would be a 'cheap' force multiplier. One reason the Czechs made such useful designs in the 1930s was that they bought modern machine tools not hanging on to old stuff to save investment capital. One could compare this to the 1960s motorcycle industry where Japanese motorcycle factories bought modern machine tool when they became available whilst UK ones kept using their old stuff. The classic example is the ex RN surplus lathe bought cheap by Nortons in 1910 still in use into the 1970s courtesy of a boot on a plank keeping the shaft in line.

When we speak of SMGs it is worth noting that the Sten was made in small light engineering (and actual sheds in yards) works that were not in the arms industry at all. So,war industrially, they all but free and a simple blow back is ideal for that and can be made with negligible effect upon other war weapons work. No matter how much better the Kiraly-BSA might be the Sten trumps it in the bigger picture. The SMLE production line exists and can provide enough for specialist uses but a 1936 Sten can arm the major part of the British army with ease and far less cost. Yes the SMG is not a universal panacea but neither is the rifle. Many SMG+some Bren+a few Rifles. Small arms done and you can keep on using existing .303 plus 9x25mm . The major need then is a Vickers replacement. .303 and 9x25mm come up in the company B Echelon. The Vickers are battalion weapons so the BESA can use 7.92mm. It is not as hard to use all these ammunitions together as one might think as the BESAs will draw separately from the company weapons and the whole battalion from a source that will hold all three. IOTL Vickers did not end up stripping belts to supply infantry with .303 as single rounds, infantry did not supply .303 in 5 round chargers for the Vickers gunners to load into belts. Vickers got supplied with belted .303 and the infantry with x5 round chargers of .303 and the two did not mix.

 

[ArtosStark]

Kiraly, is difficult to mass produce. GB over engineered it’s SMG, till Sten and went the other way.

BSA supposedly made the test units for 5 pounds each. Now cost and ease of production are not the same but they are generally interrelated. And the cost per unit generally goes down with mass manufacturing. For starters, the ones made by BSA still had the overly complex trigger group which was basically guaranteed to be changed if adopted. So where was this difficulty in manufacturing coming from?

I am also not sure what you mean by GB over engineering it’s SMG. They didn’t have one in service until the Lanchester. And that was basically a straight copy of the MP18. And from that came the Sten. Any SMG that Britain is using when the war breaks out is likely to find itself “stened” into something more manufacture friendly anyway.

 

[ArtosStark]

That would be a 'cheap' force multiplier

Seems to mostly be done when you are building up an industry or when it is profitable. US companies had similar problems competing with Japanese manufacturers, for example. Mostly though, they had the market to afford to swallow the cost of machinery upgrades. While upgrading production equipment is definitely a long term necessity for a manufacturer to stay competitive, it’s a risky time. There are many examples of companies going out of business with their shops having just been outfitted with expensive, brand new equipment. Now I think British firms took this lesson way too far, Considering their world position And the government attitude toward manufacturing at the time (not to mention the cost of unionized labour) I understand why they kept their equipment expenses down.

 

[naraic]

There was not the political will to entertain (or pay) for conscription in the UK in OTL no matter how desirable it might seem militarily.

Other ranks recruitment in the 1930s (save my father who saw it as a career) was not the plum job as seen in Germany and did not draw enough suitable recruits to transform the British army into a force of NCOs and junior officers in training like the German army. Rapid expansion would see gross shortages of experienced and trained capable NCOs and junior officers perforce, despite manful efforts by those who were so called upon. Conscription brought in a wider range of other ranks who eventually rose to the challenge to become competent NCOs and junior officers later on.

Agreed. Conscription in the 30s is not happening unless it's incredibly easy to get out of. I once saw a suggestion that could work. Conscription anyone could get out of if they were employed or in education.

Basically national service as unemployment benefit. You could get 400k soldiers trained and with a years service after 1935 like this. Could be useful for a wartime expansion while not being massively unpopular.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Other ranks recruitment in the 1930s (save my father who saw it as a career) was not the plum job as seen in Germany and did not draw enough suitable recruits to transform the British army into a force of NCOs and junior officers in training like the German army. Rapid expansion would see gross shortages of experienced and trained capable NCOs and junior officers perforce, despite manful efforts by those who were so called upon. Conscription brought in a wider range of other ranks who eventually rose to the challenge to become competent NCOs and junior officers later on.

Going in the Army was something you did in the 1930's when your only other choice was the dole, or the magistrate offered you a hard choice.

 

[Mark1878]

Agreed. Conscription in the 30s is not happening unless it's incredibly easy to get out of. I once saw a suggestion that could work. Conscription anyone could get out of if they were employed or in education.

Basically national service as unemployment benefit. You could get 400k soldiers trained and with a years service after 1935 like this. Could be useful for a wartime expansion while not being massively unpopular.

Well that gets you men but not really the cadre to build an army on. The ones you have exempted are probably the ones you need for Officers and NCOs

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

BSA supposedly made the test units for 5 pounds each. Now cost and ease of production are not the same but they are generally interrelated. And the cost per unit generally goes down with mass manufacturing. For starters, the ones made by BSA still had the overly complex trigger group which was basically guaranteed to be changed if adopted. So where was this difficulty in manufacturing coming from?

I am also not sure what you mean by GB over engineering it’s SMG. They didn’t have one in service until the Lanchester. And that was basically a straight copy of the MP18. And from that came the Sten. Any SMG that Britain is using when the war breaks out is likely to find itself “stened” into something more manufacture friendly anyway.

The Lanchester SMG, the most over engineered!!!

£14 each, vs £50 for Thompson and £40 for a Bren. (SMLE III. £3/15 in WW1)

Sten was £3??

 

[ArtosStark]

The Lanchester SMG, the most over engineered !

£14 each, vs £50 for Thompson and £40 for a Bren

Seems like that would make the Thompson even worse. But again, the Lanchester was basically a straight clone of an MP18. The engineering was basically German. Should they have come up with a good, cheap SMG prior to the war? Definitely. But it is hard to say British SMG’s were over engineered prior to the Sten when there is literally one of them and it is a copy of somebody else’s first efforts. And the Sten was built out of the Lanchester. Seems likely the Kiraly would be trimmed down as well when needed. Any word on why the Kiraly was hard to mass produce?

 

[yulzari]

Going in the Army was something you did in the 1930's when your only other choice was the dole, or the magistrate offered you a hard choice.

There is some truth in that (e.g. David Niven's RSM telling him that he had joined due to hunger) but it is a slur on many others such as my father who joined because it was a safer and more reliable job than being a fisherman (as he was) and would (in the Royal Signals) come out with a marketable trade. Actually he left 25 years later as a Major but that is another story. My grandfather having joined up in the infantry pre South African War when he ran out of money. He made RSM but advised my father that, were he to join up, to at least come out with a trade. To some recruits short service was a form of apprenticeship. As I said, your model has some truth but is more applicable to pre WW1. A problem for many poor was that they were not healthy enough to pass the medicals. This was highlighted in the South African War when a huge percentage of potential recruits were turned away as unfit. Less so in the 1930s. I know of one of my father contemporaries who was turned down but was advised to bulk up on cheap porridge and come back when he had put on enough weight (and grown a bit more being young).

 

[Ramontxo]

It's a lot lower performance than M2 ball though.

Not the Vickers D version, yes it wasent used OTL but in ATL...

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

Seems like that would make the Thompson even worse. But again, the Lanchester was basically a straight clone of an MP18. The engineering was basically German. Should they have come up with a good, cheap SMG prior to the war? Definitely. But it is hard to say British SMG’s were over engineered prior to the Sten when there is literally one of them and it is a copy of somebody else’s first efforts. And the Sten was built out of the Lanchester. Seems likely the Kiraly would be trimmed down as well when needed. Any word on why the Kiraly was hard to mass produce?

The trigger. It’s pulleys and wheels.

 

[Rickshaw]

Seems to mostly be done when you are building up an industry or when it is profitable. US companies had similar problems competing with Japanese manufacturers, for example. Mostly though, they had the market to afford to swallow the cost of machinery upgrades. While upgrading production equipment is definitely a long term necessity for a manufacturer to stay competitive, it’s a risky time. There are many examples of companies going out of business with their shops having just been outfitted with expensive, brand new equipment. Now I think British firms took this lesson way too far, Considering their world position And the government attitude toward manufacturing at the time (not to mention the cost of unionized labour) I understand why they kept their equipment expenses down.

Both Japan and Germany emerged from the war with a demolished industrial base. Both Japan and Germany created a new industrial base which was much more efficient than the Old or the New World. The cost of labour has little to do with what they achieved. Indeed, your swipe at Unionised labour is rather typical of the American view. In the UK, the Unions got out of control and that resulted in the Coal strike of the late 1970s. They were before that quite willing to fight management but not to the point where they would cut their own throats and anyway, that was very much post-war. Before the war, they were still organising. Unionised labour need not cost more than non-unionise labour. It is about conditions, rather than wages, that most workers become unionised. Fix the conditions and everybody is happy. Fuck the conditions and no one ends up happy.