I have shot a Browning HP in 9mm at 200yds. Ammo was Sellier&Bellot, and rather hot. It is not easy, but possible. The hold over is less of a problem than wind, which really catches the round. Of course I did know exactly the range I was shooting at. As a practical military proposition, no.
Rearm the British Infantry for WWII
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
marathag
Banned
Large quantities of Loose rounds rarely went forward. It was nearly all in preloaded clips, strippers, mags and belts. Next, talk to guys who shoot M1919 today. Reloading even cloth belts by hand is a royal pain without the hand crank M1918 belt loader.
There are others to blame as well. "Oh What a Lovely War" and Blackadder Goes Forth" have a lot to answer for.
McPherson
Banned
The idiot who designed that lever operated belt feeder (M1919 hop feeder) should have been broken on a wagon wheel. The M1918 top-feeder is no prize either but at least that bozo learned something from the hand crank Vickers belt loader.
He had to keep them going to take the pressure off the French, it wasn't just a case of "Give it one more go and we'll bash through".
How are the BA going to pay for it. The US is not giving away all that gear and ammo for free so either the UK is producing all the US gear under licence and paying a licencing fee and when/if lend-lease comes in they are going to be left in even more debt. I would prefer the UK going for 7.92 (the ammo's lighter than .30-06) and 9mm Para - this allows the UK to use captured German rifle/lmg/mmg ammo and 9mm para. The existing Vickers and Bren could not be converted to 30-06 as the receiver is too short so going from .303 to 7.92 is doable.
I agree with the sentiment of your comments.
BTW Britain did not start significantly producing new SMLE III till 1940. GB lived off fat, regarding rifles.
Later half of SMLE 4 production, was in Nth America. GB was stuck between old and new, and old tooling and re-tooling.
As you said, maybe it should have re-tooled, re-equiped the small regular army and past off SMLE to TA ??
Last edited:
I had a relative who joined pre-war as he didn't want to be a miner. He was sent to France with the Glosters and ended up in the rearguard in Dunkirk and spent the whole war in a German POW camp. Came home, got married didn't go down the pit and got called up again and sent to Korea where he basically went from the troopship to the front line with barely a pause and ended up on Gloster Hill where he was captured by the Chinese and spent the rest of the war in a Chinese POW camp. Some of the guys he was with had spent the whole of WW2 in a POW camp which was literally across a valley from the one he landed up in. He never ate rice again.
marathag
Banned
So you would have kept fighting thru 3rd Ypres til November, long after any pressure on the French had subsided?
The SMLE was redesignated as the No.1 Mk. III. During the 20’s the British developed later Marks, up to Mk VI, which was very nearly a No.4. The No. 4 was tested in the early 30’s, in what was basically its final configuration. It existed, and was finalized. The production had just not scaled up yet.
They had the Mk IV/No4 setting there, and did nothing until 41! Could have had any rifle as it was all new factories.
“Beginning shortly after WWI, trials were conducted at the Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF) in Enfield on a rifle with a receiver-mounted backsight. Trials continued through the 1920s and 1930s, yielding the No. 1 Mk V rifle in 1922 and the No. 1 Mk VI rifle in 1926. In 1931, the No. 1 Mk VI was altered slightly and redesignated the No. 4 Mk I. Trials resulted in the adoption in November 1939 of the No. 4 Mk I Rifle as the new British service rifle.
In England, two new Royal Ordnance Factories (ROF) were established to manufacture the No. 4 rifle: one at Fazakerley (a suburb of Liverpool) and one at Maltby (near Sheffield). In addition, BSA Co. built a plant in Shirley (a suburb of Birmingham) to manufacture the No. 4 rifle. Production was under way at these plants by the middle of 1941.
The British government also contracted with the Savage Arms Company in the U.S. and with Small Arms, Ltd. in Canada to produce the No. 4 rifle. Production of Mk I rifles began at the Savage-owned Stevens Arms Co. plant in Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts in July 1941, while production of Mk I rifles began at the Small Arms Ltd. plant in Long Branch, Ontario in September 1941.”
To be fair, when you've go an army of something like 300,000 men and roughly 3 million rifles in storage why would you make more unless you're adopting a new type?
They were always going to have to rearm - and Britain was not a 3rd world nation - it was a hyper power - it had a bob or two - simply spending more than 4% of GDP (at the start of 1939 for fucks sake!!!!) on the military would easily pay for it.
Freeing the purse strings earlier actually 'saves' Britain money as they would be less reliant on Lend lease had they made greater investment earlier over a greater period of time.
Building the Bren in 30-06 from the beginning (not converting it after developing as a .303 weapon) and getting the Czechs to do it instead of converting to .303 in the first place would cost no more than OTL
Relying on captured enemy ammo is a recipe for utter disaster and is not something that a nation like the UK could rely upon- and leads the obvious result that they too can rely on captured British ammo.
And the Vickers could certainly be converted - its basically a big empty shell when you take the internals out and I am sure that Ive read of privately owned version exist that have conversion kits for 30-06 s well as other ammunition types.
Ian from Forgotten weapons was selling his a few years back and I am sure it came with a conversion kit for various ammo types including 30-06 but the link I found for that no longer works!
Far too much. Both are amusing anecdotes of how WWI is believed to have worked but in reality it was a lot more professional than that. The British Army were the first to introduce "stormtrooper tactics", without calling it that. Haig established a large number of schools where the soldiers were sent, when not in the line and were put through the latest tactical theory until they got it right. In 1916, all the soldiers had been taught was how to standard and advance in line, much to their cost on the first day of the Somme. By 1918 and the hundred days they were advancing in rushes, using LMGs and Grenades and outflanking the enemies' strongpoints with the aid of artillery, tanks and aircraft. In 1919, they were preparing to do the same with airlanded troops well behind the enemy lines and overwhelm them from both directions. The Allies beat the Germans to the point that all that was preventing them marching into Germany was the devestation of no-man's land where they couldn't move the artillery and the railways to resupply them.
I have read accounts of British riflemen at Sidi Barrani having to 'lick the bolts clean of sand' in order to get their SMLEs to run in the desert
What killed 276 and Pederson was not the waxed ammo or the toggle lock - it was the USA adopting 30-06 and the Pederson not having a 30-06 weapon in the wings like the Garand did.
There is a reason why the British would become fanatical about the subsequent post war weapon being able to run in the desert -such as the cut outs on the bolt of the Sterling SMG and its over engineered magazine.
BSA made a number of suggestions regarding the Kiraly (including simplifying the complex trigger group) and lo and behold the version made in Hungary is pretty much what they suggested.
BSA said they could produce the weapon for £5 each (Sten gun MkII cost about half this) - considering that they ended up buying Thompsons at more that £40 each I'd say that was a bargain!
And the Vickers stripped down - massive amount of room for a conversion - its like an empty cathedral
As for Pistols - meh - police mans weapon - by having them supplied with each Bren gun kit I was attempting to 'shoe horn them in'
And I'm not even sorry
Basically the BSA-Kiraly or M2 Carbine depending on which post - would replace pistols in front line service - but its the Hi Power dammit
It is interesting. For Americans, pistols are a major weapon. Every other army go, "meh! A status symbol for officers!" and then basically ignores them. Pistols? I can hit the broadside of a barn on a good day. With an SMG I can make sure I hit and make sure all parts of it are perforated. If given a choice, an SMG is a adequate weapon. For rear-echelon troops, I'd give them sawn off shotguns. They aren't interested in spending hours on the range, brushing up their marksmanship, they just want a weapon that can function in an emergency and hurt someone.
Vickers in 30-06, I knew the US Army had some from WW1 but I was unaware of a conversion for UK Mk1's were kicking around. Ian's was in 7.62x64R and there were some other kits for 7.62 NATO from South Africa and 7.92 were made also - I think the Turks bought some in the 1920's.
Relying on enemy ammo stocks is a non-starter for the army in general, but it is nice for units who are advancing to make use of it instead of hauling ammo up to the front. The British, as did many other nations, had manuals which indicated which enemy mortar rounds were compatible with British 3" mortars and what modification needed to be done to use them safely. This was of particular benefit in the Western Desert when the 8th Army were reliant on an overstrained road net for transport, being able to use captured mortar rounds relieved the strain and freed up capacity for fuel and food.
For the UK to rearm on such a scale would strain the defence budget to breaking point in the early 1930's, there is also the issue of how it would affect balance of trade as UK production methods were different to the ones used in the US requiring the import of US machine tools and production methods all of which would need to be paid for with cold, hard cash. Don't forget all of the existing weapons in the Empires armouries which cannot be converted so that includes all the existing Enfield rifles as their receivers are too short for .30-06, existing Lewis guns, Vickers-Berthiers in Indian Service etc
What would be more sensible would be to select an existing rimless round which would allow existing weapons to be used in secondary roles/theaters after conversion so the obvious solution is going to be French 7.5 or 7.92.
The other option would be to accept they aren't getting a new rifle, bite the bullet and instead increase Bren production and build a reasonable SMG in 9x19 and issue a lot of AT mines Finnish style to the troops until they can be replaced by an effective infantry AT weapon.
The moral of story, don’t oil!
Don’t imagine the Pedersen getting up in .30-06. With the huge stockpile of M1906 ammo, unless you start waxing it, or put fluted chambers, Pedersen is a non-starter .
The Kiraly bolt is very “sweet” design. Super simple. Put a separate firing pin and hammer, you can have a very nice carbine.
Clarke in his PhD, says 9x23mm largo, not 9x25 Mauser, MP28/II Spanish used as bases for Lanchester.
The French after Winchester SL we’re not that keen on pistol caliber SMGs, and the British not at all. Until May 39, first BSA, and EMP 35.
Ok, my mistake on Vickers.
Surprised in can take .30-06? With M1 heavy ball, you have a much better round than Mk8z
A "road net"? In the Western Desert there was usually only one road - along the coast. The rest were "tracks" which got used more and more during the various handicap races from one end to the other. The British Army was never going to rearm in differing calibres before the end of WWII. It was simply too large an organisation and too much investment had been made in creating weapons which used .303in rounds. The industry had been made - empire wide to manufacture SMLEs, Vickers guns, Lewis guns and then Bren guns. You simply cannot expect them to change all that overnight. .303in was it. The British Army was not going change.