7.65×53mm Belgian is also an option
and unlike the 7.7x58 it doesn't require modifying the receiver to fit
edit: the receiver of the smle
Last edited:
UK adopts the 7.5mm French rifle round.
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
and unlike the 7.7x58 it doesn't require modifying the receiver to fit
edit: the receiver of the smle
I remain puzzled why there is discussion of other ammunition when the OP is 'UK-adopts-the-7.5mm-French Rifle-Round. A new thread on a British post WW1 ammunition choice is perfectly valid but the OP here is very specific. With France and Britain going foe the same small arms ammunition one can look to what it would mean for changes in their small arms and if there is a place for common small arms.
BTW. Trivia; Britain did not come to the aid of France. It allied with France to come to the aid of Belgium and gave a home to hundreds of thousands of Belgian refugees.
BTW. Trivia; Britain did not come to the aid of France. It allied with France to come to the aid of Belgium and gave a home to hundreds of thousands of Belgian refugees.
So they had an American designed and made weapon that worked, but the A.E.F. was saddled with the French designed and made Chau chat that didn't because of a personality clash between the designer and the Bureau of Ordnance? Good choice there.
a very over simplified version of events, but kind of
The US made/converted (?) Chauchat didn't work well in 30-06 the French ones worked well or certainly better than the US One.
The US one was so bad that I do not believe that it was ever used in combat - with the US forces using the French weapons in combat. IIRC no US one left the US.
What the Chauchat had going for it was that it was so simple and relatively easy/cheap to make and this allowed the French army to make so many of them that it was available at Squad level!
It was the Sten gun of WW1
The British took one look at the Lewis Gun and threw lots of money at it - while it was more expensive to make than the Vickers it was easier to make in terms of man hours.
Certainly the US Army and Marines would have been better served with the Lewis gun
A recent series of videos on WW1 LMGs showed how good it was compared to its peers
The "designer" Lewis was receiving $50 a gun in royalties and became incredibly rich.
Capitalism at work
Thompson did the same in early WW2 - for the cost of a single Tommy gun the British could buy 2 Brens! And that's without the compensator - or about 30 stens LOL
Instead of converting the Lewis in store Britain could have had the Chatellerault FM 24/29 LMG in service ten years before the Bren. The Vickers is so easy to convert that there would be no point in replacing that and with a very good LMG in 7.5mm also it only leaves looking for a semi automatic standard rifle to complete a (period) modern suite of small arms. In hindsight only an SMG is missing. Both the nations had a late WW1 semi automatic rifle design going into major production. Change to 7.5mm and change to a 10 or 20 round box magazine.As government designs the French options could have been gifted without royalties if they wished.
There are all sorts of things to think of when doing changes. e.g. do you stick with a 5 round stripper clip for ammunition issue. The 7.5mm could put 6 where 5 .303 or 8mm Lebel went but would the webbing pouches take it or would they need replacing. It might be best to stay with 5 round clips. With 6 your semi automatic rifle magazine would probably be a 12 rounder for x2 clips from the bandolier. The FM 24/29 (like the later Bren) requires large LMG magazine pouches for the whole section/platoon to carry the LMG ammunition with their rifle clips in bandoliers. Again we might need major webbing changes. Would there be changes to the tactics with a change from bolt action to semi automatic rifles or would they simply be used as better rifles.
If all of this results in better cross service planning between Britain and France maybe that feeds across to tanks and artillery. IIRC there was a plan for the Hotchkiss H39 to be made in Britain at one time. If the French can be persuaded to abandon 1 man turrets and the British shoulder elevation of the gun then both would benefit. IOTL I can't see a partially mechanised 1940 French Infantry Division pulling a Montgomery and swapping from one end of the front to the other at night in one move but that sort of mobility (which was exceptional in the British Army) could get a better use of existing units in France in 1940. If the French could be persuaded to rely on radio communications as the British did then the French command could both actually know what is going on and issue effective orders to match.
Just possibly adopting 7.5mm French could be a driver to closer cooperation all round. Of course rather than breeding a combined potato and tomato plant of the same family they could get a plant with the root of a lettuce and the leaves of a parsnip if the right lessons are not exchanged.
There are all sorts of things to think of when doing changes. e.g. do you stick with a 5 round stripper clip for ammunition issue. The 7.5mm could put 6 where 5 .303 or 8mm Lebel went but would the webbing pouches take it or would they need replacing. It might be best to stay with 5 round clips. With 6 your semi automatic rifle magazine would probably be a 12 rounder for x2 clips from the bandolier. The FM 24/29 (like the later Bren) requires large LMG magazine pouches for the whole section/platoon to carry the LMG ammunition with their rifle clips in bandoliers. Again we might need major webbing changes. Would there be changes to the tactics with a change from bolt action to semi automatic rifles or would they simply be used as better rifles.
If all of this results in better cross service planning between Britain and France maybe that feeds across to tanks and artillery. IIRC there was a plan for the Hotchkiss H39 to be made in Britain at one time. If the French can be persuaded to abandon 1 man turrets and the British shoulder elevation of the gun then both would benefit. IOTL I can't see a partially mechanised 1940 French Infantry Division pulling a Montgomery and swapping from one end of the front to the other at night in one move but that sort of mobility (which was exceptional in the British Army) could get a better use of existing units in France in 1940. If the French could be persuaded to rely on radio communications as the British did then the French command could both actually know what is going on and issue effective orders to match.
Just possibly adopting 7.5mm French could be a driver to closer cooperation all round. Of course rather than breeding a combined potato and tomato plant of the same family they could get a plant with the root of a lettuce and the leaves of a parsnip if the right lessons are not exchanged.
————————————————————————-
I disagree!
When a factory starts producing a new product, they buy all new tools, dies, QC guages and micrometers. That is the simplest time to convert from inches to millimetres.
As for the UK arms industry struggling with “new” metric ammo .... Hah!
During WW2 Britian produced 9 x 19 pistol ammo, 7.92 Besa ammo and 20 mm ammo for Hispano-Swuisa cannons.
——————————————————————
You are suggesting “doing it the hard way.”
Far simpler to buy new metric micrometers when you start producing a new product.
I work with both Imperial and metric measurements and keep two tape measures in my tool kit.
I pull out my “inch” tape measure when working on American-made equipment and use my “centimetre” tape measure when working on European-made equipment. Many tape measures are now made with inches along one edge and centimetres along the other edge.
—————————————————————————————-
Remember that the entire British Empire economy was based on the concept of paying low prices for agricultural staples (food, thread, metal ores, etc.) produced in the colonies then selling high-tech (weapkons, steam ships, woven cloth, etc.) back at top dollar.
High prices and shortages of (British-made) machine tools is one of the reasons the Canadian economy converted from British patterns to American patterns during the 1940s and 1950s.
Fairchild of Canada started producing Bristol Bolingbrokes at the start of WW2, but finished building sub-components for Grumman.
Canadian Car and Foundry started by building Hawker Hurricanes, but finished building Curtiss Helldivers.
DeHavilland of Canada started the war building Tiger Moths with British-built engines but finished building DH Mosquitos with Packard Merlin engines.
Montreal Locomotive Works started building Vickers Valentine tanks, but ended building Sexton SP guns on American-pattern M4 Sherman chassis.
@riggerrob, please do do not multi-post,
you can edit in whatever you need to add later,
edit, quick thought
the besa was originally the ZB-53, add a stock and a bipod and it might be a good mmg
you can edit in whatever you need to add later,
how about the mas 40? or at least the same action with brit furniture and sights,
edit, quick thought
the besa was originally the ZB-53, add a stock and a bipod and it might be a good mmg
Last edited:
I think the British would be more comfortable working with the Belgians on developing a rifle than the French military bureaucracy and the FN rifle was ready for production at the same time. With the British adding cash and a little more urgency to things, as well as the fact the Belgians aren't also developing a second line bolt action rifle it could be ready earlier even with having to work in a calibre change.
The clue is in the date. ordered in 1940 for 1941. A bit late for WW2. Maybe they would prevaricate less in a joint project?
Was the FN rifle not post W2 developed from the SLEM-1 made in the UK in 1943/4 and became the FAL via the FN49? Or at least the proto SLEM-1 was begun in 1938 in Belgium.
To my mind French 7.5mm is not going to be chosen post WW2 but post WW1.
Deleted member 1487
Given the Belgian reaction to British foreign policy in the 1930s I doubt it. France and Britain were getting closer, so it would make the most sense to standardize between them.
It might be a little heavy for that, the Beardmore-Farquhar .50 Vickers was about 19-20kg, the .303 was only 7.3kg. However that is less than a 7.92mm BESA and about half that of an M2 Browning. (The Luftwaffe replaced the 7.92mm MG17 with the 13.2mm MG131 on what was a one for one basis.)
As a support weapon, vehicle mount or replacement for .303 Brownings it has possibilities.