1937-42, yet another alt British Army what-if

[jsb]

Or they could simply make a air cooled Vickers if thats what they wanted?

After all the 1919 is simply an air cooled 1917

But why when you have already bought the licences in 1935 for RAF (but It's for entire empire anyway..) and got the 1919 in production....? The Vickers is anyway an older design to work from that will need more work, taking a 1919A4 and fitting the MKII 303 feed system should be easy and only say a matter of a month's work to get working?

The Vickers had something the Colt did not: accuracy and reliability. You could fire a Vickers and expect it to shave a fly at 1,000 metres. It was that accurate. As for reliability, it was able to fire for several days straight, allowing for barrel changes and belt changes, when it was used in WWI. No Colt matched that. Nothing but a Vickers was capable of such.

I really question much of the relevance of that for WWII the Vickers is basically just an improved Maxim gun, and the Colt is not exactly an unreliable gun by reputation? By WWII does it matter if you can sit and fire all day at 1000 meters if after less than 30 mins the enemy will probably bring up a counter battery system (mortar, artillery, tank...) and kill you for it? The Colt (and just about every WW2 MG) is far cheaper to make than the Vickers & Maxim for a reason and lighter to allow them to be moved to actually survive to be useful?

Also at 1000m what is the mechanical accuracy of the bullets/wind etc forgetting the gun they are fired out of as the worse parts of the system will dominate accuracy so "expect it to shave a fly1,000 metres" are you not mostly going to be trying to suppress area targets potentially at even larger ranges 2000-3000+m, we are not really talking about a sniper rifle aiming at one person here they would potentially be firing blind on bearings into areas that you think the enemy will be using to advance in?

 

[vetinari]

But why when you have already bought the licences in 1935 for RAF (but It's for entire empire anyway..) and got the 1919 in production....? The Vickers is anyway an older design to work from that will need more work, taking a 1919A4 and fitting the MKII 303 feed system should be easy and only say a matter of a month's work to get working?

I really question much of the relevance of that for WWII the Vickers is basically just an improved Maxim gun, and the Colt is not exactly an unreliable gun by reputation? By WWII does it matter if you can sit and fire all day at 1000 meters if after less than 30 mins the enemy will probably bring up a counter battery system (mortar, artillery, tank...) and kill you for it? The Colt (and just about every WW2 MG) is far cheaper to make than the Vickers & Maxim for a reason and lighter to allow them to be moved to actually survive to be useful?

Also at 1000m what is the mechanical accuracy of the bullets/wind etc forgetting the gun they are fired out of as the worse parts of the system will dominate accuracy so "expect it to shave a fly1,000 metres" are you not mostly going to be trying to suppress area targets potentially at even larger ranges 2000-3000+m, we are not really talking about a sniper rifle aiming at one person here they would potentially be firing blind on bearings into areas that you think the enemy will be using to advance in?

 

[Gannt the chartist]

It depends on what we want, but if we want to say stop FoF would a large commercial order of .5"BMG bolt action rifles done in the USA not like be possible if done in 37 for delivery in 39 (really completed in 40) and they would with good tungsten ammo stop any tank from the side at the time if not most of them from the front at close range? Look at how fast PTRD was put into production, for example, and a large of the large arms & hunting rifle manufactures could make you a few thousand for cash without disrupting GB supply chains and industry for other more specialized weapons?

The advantage of .5" BMG is that it's available early on and in US industry spare for cash (and in 37/38/39 GB had cash spare that it could have spent better than it later spent it WWII for the same stuff at higher prices...) so you can order them quickly with little development time?
You basically ask US commercial industry for an updated Mauser 13 mm anti-tank rifle (preferable with magazine and removable barrel for transport etc..) in .5" quickly and see what they offer you and then take it so long as it works and is not at an extortionate price (and in the end of Great Depression pre WW2 it will not be....)?

No. The basic issue is if the British make a decision to rearm earlier thats what they do. The big early investments are in production capacity not weapons procurement. Once thats in place the guns flow. So in 1939 artillery production is 538 units, in 1940 4,700 41 16,700, 42, 43,000 for the 2lb ( carriages, guns are much higher) its 450 to eo 39 1500 in 40. 4000 in 41. And thats the deal. As soon as the production kicks in you get very good weapons in large numbers.

 

[jsb]

Yes, but thats WW1.. the OP is 37+...... why go for more new Vickers guns when the Colt is cheaper to make and 90%+ as good and lighter to move round and now far more dangerous battlefield for static MGs?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Another sensible option would be collaboration with France on calibres - possibly going all in on 7.5 x 54 French to create a common entente calibre?

It's late 1938 early 1939 war is just around the corner. Your main ally has this nifty new SA rifle just about ready to enter production. Get on board with them, get the technical drawings, so your factories around the world can boost French production, should the need arise. On the quiet adapt it to .303 just in case you find a need for it.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

These things take time an earlier POD and I would be pushing for Vickers Pederson rifle and BREN in .276 with an adoption of the BESA in the same calibre

.256" (Japanese 6.5mm) was made in Britain.

This was agreed and from early 1916 Royal Laboratory and Kynoch supplied a total of 559 million rounds.

 

[Catsmate]

Mauser 7.63x 25mm is very close

Or a hotter load like the Soviet version.

 

[marathag]

The Vickers had something the Colt did not: accuracy and reliability. You could fire a Vickers and expect it to shave a fly at 1,000 metres. It was that accurate. As for reliability, it was able to fire for several days straight, allowing for barrel changes and belt changes, when it was used in WWI. No Colt matched that. Nothing but a Vickers was capable of such.

Accuracy?

the rig Sgt. Carlos Hathcock used for his then record 2500 yard hit

Reliability? Fine. Now try being Air cooled so it's a mobile light gun

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Yes, but thats WW1.. the OP is 37+...... why go for more new Vickers guns when the Colt is cheaper to make and 90%+ as good and lighter to move round and now far more dangerous battlefield for static MGs?

Its also every WW2 battle and Korea. No air cooled weapon can do what a water cooled one can. Stick it on a fast moving aircraft in cold air with short bursts the norm they are great. Fire on the ground in short bursts great ( thats why the british have the Bren which is the mobile batallion level weapon with a tripod if you want it that is lighter than any of the US mg. ) sustained fire in support of an attack much less effective. The US retain the M1917A1 through the war and Korea for the same reason 8 per Bn in ww2. WW2 total production is around 24,000 guns ( half Uk half Aus) vs 75,000 UK production and 12,000 Colt Vickers (in 30-06).

Firing a single round from a .50 is not accuracy or impressive for a heavy round with a scope - its why AT weapons have scopes. Its an automatic weapon, what happens with the 3rd and 4th rounds whats the dispersion pattern, how close to your own troops can you get how long can you fire for.

It's late 1938 early 1939 war is just around the corner. Your main ally has this nifty new SA rifle just about ready to enter production. Get on board with them, get the technical drawings, so your factories around the world can boost French production, should the need arise. On the quiet adapt it to .303 just in case you find a need for it.

In 1940 there is limited production of the MAS 40, really at the trials level. otherwise they use the bolt action. As a changeover it means changing the entire ammunition supply and manufacturing process for ammunition most of which goes out of an MG in order to get a marginally better rifle in theory, in practice not much if any improvement. The UK had looked at just about every semi auto rifle produced interwar and its not worth the cost. In fact the only army that thinks it is is the US who dont believe in LMGs. If anything the British were considering a move to the 7.92, without WW2 much more likely to have one of the SLEM -1 ( FN 1949, without the occupation of Czechoslovakia maybe a development of their Semi Auto. )

The 6.5mm is a crap MG round so unless you accept a supply chain with two calibres its a non starter. The .276 is a massive expense in changing out the MG calibres and ammo stocks for no great advantage in the late 30s.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

The 6.5mm is a crap MG round so unless you accept a supply chain with two calibres its a non starter. The .276 is a massive expense in changing out the MG calibres and ammo stocks for no great advantage in the late 30s.

Every nation at the time with 6.5mm, introduced a proper mg round ( mostly 8mm).

Sweden, Italy, Japan,....

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

The Vickers had something the Colt did not: accuracy and reliability. You could fire a Vickers and expect it to shave a fly at 1,000 metres. It was that accurate. As for reliability, it was able to fire for several days straight, allowing for barrel changes and belt changes, when it was used in WWI. No Colt matched that. Nothing but a Vickers was capable of such.

SFMG is about application and consistency.

It does not shave flies! The beaten zone is over 2 metres wide at the above range.

It's about laying the beaten zone on an area, and alternating a pair of guns bursts to move the zone around.

It can drive from end to end of target area, squeeze or fence in, it all up the the commanders intiative and creativity.

 

[Reggieperrin]

Any worth in anti-tank/anti-material rifles? Boys 0.55 is a bit underpowered against some serious tank/AFV, so perhaps go with more powerful cartridges - Vickers .661in, Besa 15mm, or straight to 20mm - Solothurn models for their 'short' or 'long' cartridge, or Oerlikon? Even a single-shot weapon will do, especially with some optical sight.
Unlike Germans, British can burn through tungsten supply.

This I think is again a microcosm of the British Army problem. Always there is the shock of realising that a small, well-equipped professional army with a large navy and large airforce will not be enough, but they need to raise, train, equip a very large army. OTL they knew the Boys was not good enough but never found the resources for an adequate replacement until desperation lead them to the PIAT.

ATL I suspect they will want something really good like the Lathi or Solothurn weapons, analogous to their super fancy two 2lb AT they could never get in adequate numbers. But what they need is something cheap and adequate that can be made (and used) by lots of hurriedly-trained people. PTRD (or maybe PTRS) equivalent partly solves that need until bazooka/rpg comes along, if they can find a spare designer.

15mm seems to me like the absolute top end of what can be practical in a rifle, beyond that it is a carried cannon. Besa round I believe started as a 20mm failure and was necked down, so many of the small cannon cartridges should do as a starting point. 20x105B necked to take the 13.9mm/.55 Boys bullet+tungsten might be worth trying.

 

[Reggieperrin]

Its also every WW2 battle and Korea. No air cooled weapon can do what a water cooled one can.

But air cooled weapons can do what no water cooled machine gun can do - stay in military service once there is a choice between the two.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

But air cooled weapons can do what no water cooled machine gun can do - stay in military service once there is a choice between the two.

Except for the British American and Russian armies who keep their water cooled weapons throughout the war, despite having air cooled weapons available, the US has more water than air cooled .30 cal at Bn level until late 44 when they just add more guns. The British admittedly take the Vickers out of Bn use in 1916/17 and use the as a support weapon. US is still using them in the late 60s when it is replaced by the M60. The Vickers is replaced in British service in 68 and the Russian Maxim still in official use in fact readopted by the Ukraine in 2016.

The Germans go to the air cooled gun, but then they use whatever MG they can find from anywhere and lose, as in the entire country.

Post war things change and they are not replaced with maxim types, but by then there are many more bullet proof vehicles and much more dispersion of troops so the MG as a whole is much less important unless you get trench lines.

 

[vetinari]

But air cooled weapons can do what no water cooled machine gun can do - stay in military service once there is a choice between the two.

Australia re-introduced the Vickers to replace an air-cooled GPMG in the early 1980s. The M60 GPMG was unable to work for sustained periods and was prone to cracking. South Africa stuck with the Vickers throughout the 1970s and 1980s, partially because of economic sanctions and partly because it was just a superior MMG. The Vickers was simply a great weapon whose time had not yet come to be replaced.

 

[Mike D]

The only problem the Vickers has is the weight. If you really want to put a trillion rounds downrange without stopping then there is absolutely no substitute.

 

[jsb]

Except for the British American and Russian armies who keep their water cooled weapons throughout the war....Maxim still in official use in fact readopted by.... Ukraine......

Is that the point, they kept them, but that not the same as spending limited resources building a lot more of them? All the water cooled MGs are expensive to make, old technology compared to the later air cooled MGs and not that much better and with other system like mortars available that can do the long range downrange work even better by WWII the need to build them in huge numbers is questionable?

If we are GB in 1937 we might build some more Vickers and refurbishing the ones we have in stores, but we should be really be investing in medium/heavy mortars for the infantry and getting them into large scale issue, Ideally say take the French Mortier Brandt de 120mm Modele 1935 and just buy the licences and mass produce it fast. (we know it works as Soviets used it as well and some are probably still around to this day..)

With a mechanized army including Mortar/Universal Carriers to mount or tow the 120mm mortars into action? This is far better than any MG for long range suppression or interdiction fire?

M1938 mortar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Is that the point, they kept them, but that not the same as spending limited resources building a lot more of them? All the water cooled MGs are expensive to make, old technology compared to the later air cooled MGs and not that much better and with other system like mortars available that can do the long range downrange work even better by WWII the need to build them in huge numbers is questionable?

If we are GB in 1937 we might build some more Vickers and refurbishing the ones we have in stores, but we should be really be investing in medium/heavy mortars for the infantry and getting them into large scale issue, Ideally say take the French Mortier Brandt de 120mm Modele 1935 and just buy the licences and mass produce it fast. (we know it works as Soviets used it as well and some are probably still around to this day..)

With a mechanized army including Mortar/Universal Carriers to mount or tow the 120mm mortars into action? This is far better than any MG for long range suppression or interdiction fire?

M1938 mortar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Priority is for the Bren which is the only MG held at Bn level in the British army. That starts with the license being given in 35 and introduction at scale in 38. Britain only produces 12,000 Vickers whole war, the Aussies about the same.

The French version of the 120 is only coming into service in 1940, the Russian 1939 and the Finnish in 1940. Its not a matter of just buying the licence youy also have to allocate factory space, workforce ammunition and explosives for filling the ammo. What do you propose dropping from production that early 25lb? ammo for existing guns, At weapons?

And what do you get, a means of dropping HE or Smoke on targets you can observe and correct for which weighs half a tonne when assembled and can fire 6km.

Which means the observer has to communicate with the firing position. Which the British can do using the artillery FOO as can the US and spread the call for fire across multiple batteries. The Germans and Russians do not have the comms to do this so are reduced to pushing their fire support down to a controllable level involving single phone lines (for the Russians if lend lease keeps up just about all their phone wire was US) yelling at people. When the British do put heavy mortars into units its the 4.2 at about double the number the Soviets have per division.

As capacity increases what the British do is add more 2'' and 3'' mortars to the infantry Bn the latter having 10% the weight of the 120 and and enough range about a mile to be controlled on the Bn net.

 

[Reggieperrin]

Except for the British American and Russian armies who keep their water cooled weapons throughout the war, despite having air cooled weapons available, the US has more water than air cooled .30 cal at Bn level until late 44 when they just add more guns. The British admittedly take the Vickers out of Bn use in 1916/17 and use the as a support weapon. US is still using them in the late 60s when it is replaced by the M60. The Vickers is replaced in British service in 68 and the Russian Maxim still in official use in fact readopted by the Ukraine in 2016.

It’s also worth noting that Britain dug out single-shot martini-Henry carbines to equip the home guard, Moisin-nagants have also been on the front line in the Ukraine, and ammunition boots were British Army issue until the sixties. Just because armies have a lot of old crap tucked away in their warehouses or clogging up their supply chains does not immediately mean it is what they want to have, or want in those quantities.

Sure, if desperate it better than nothing but the Vickers-Maxim is a horrendous old Victorian fossil, and it being used by anyone after the twenties is a solid indicator of something having gone wrong somewhere. The M1917 is at least at the cutting edge of WW1 technology and designed for easy manufacture on early 20th C tooling, but it’s also not really the right answer to anything even before WW2.

Heck, even the British army loved the Vickers soooo much they bought the Vz26 (half a million or so), ZB-38 (40,000 or so) , hung spare Lewis & VGOs all over stuff, and used cheap Browning M1919s on many vehicles into the seventies.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

It’s also worth noting that Britain dug out single-shot martini-Henry carbines to equip the home guard, Moisin-nagants have also been on the front line in the Ukraine, and ammunition boots were British Army issue until the sixties. Just because armies have a lot of old crap tucked away in their warehouses or clogging up their supply chains does not immediately mean it is what they want to have, or want in those quantities.

Sure, if desperate it better than nothing but the Vickers-Maxim is a horrendous old Victorian fossil, and it being used by anyone after the twenties is a solid indicator of something having gone wrong somewhere. The M1917 is at least at the cutting edge of WW1 technology and designed for easy manufacture on early 20th C tooling, but it’s also not really the right answer to anything even before WW2.

Heck, even the British army loved the Vickers soooo much they bought the Vz26 (half a million or so), ZB-38 (40,000 or so) , hung spare Lewis & VGOs all over stuff, and used cheap Browning M1919s on many vehicles into the seventies.

I don't see an issue with keeping older equipment in service when it works.
Firstly, eeryone did it so it's not unique to Britain.
Secondly, it makes sense [1] as making new stuff takes time, money and effort, and it's better to replace the obsolete and useless stuff first.

[1] economically and thus politically, but also militarily as new equipment has to be evaluated, accepted, introduced along with new training systems, logistics trains and all those boring background things. Even if only a version thst's much easier to make, it's likely to need slightly different maintenance and repair, so that's new tools and training for the armourers; a change to the drawings and manufacturing equipment in the factory and different stores practices to separate the old and new lines. All perfectly doable, but not to be done without a reason.