Yep, boarding, base security, counter-boarding, all good reasons for such a weapon for the matelots and marines.
1937-42, yet another alt British Army what-if
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
In 1938 should the army not just talked have to the RAF (or the company rep should have said it was already in production) and that a 303 M1919 would save having to set up to make any new gun types in a rush just make a heavy barrel version of the RAF gun already selected since 1935? By 38 the army should have decided it needed stuff now (after all thats why they decided not to redesign the ZB53 like the Bren to 303...) and that a 303 weapon that was already sorted and in UK production was better than picking something new and really do tank MGs need QC barrels as much as say LMGs they can get be given a very heavy barrel to absorb at least some of the heat?
Last edited:
The Polish AT rifle was a 10kg weapon hwitha similar muzzle velocity Wiki (I know...) says 4,180 ft/second, 1,275 m/s, and that was in the late 1930s.
Penetration at 100m was good, and it would have easily holed a half track and had a good chance against the early model Panzers at 300m.
Being only rifle calibre at 7.9mm, I'm not sure how it would do against softskin engine blocks etc.
I was thinking more like .5" BMG SLAP?
But is that not far later tech built on the tech base from working (and building the ammo in mass numbers) with single stage weapons, first for a generation like RPG2?
marathag
Banned
It's the solution the Panzerfaust low velocity, when other solutions that had a larger diameter warhead than the Bazooka, the Panzershrek and Super Bazooka that the rocket motor hadn't finished burning before leaving the tube.
The tech is easy, you have a very short delay train on the rocket motor that ignites with the initial lofting charge that allow the projectile to deploy its fins, get a few yards downrange before igniting the motor
The MK2 Browning was a specialised air gun - there was a reason it was only 10 kgs - it was lightweight and only expected to fire several hundred rounds at most with plenty of cooling on a given mission and would have received a damn lot more TLC than a squad level LMG.
IMO not suitable as a tank MMG or an infantry weapon except in desperation - only the USMC tried it with just 6 weapons converted for ground use (See Stinger)
I agree that the army should have decided on a MMG for its AFV earlier and if so still no reason why they could not have still picked the ZB53/BESA and like the BREN modified it for .303
So lets assume that happens?
I do not have an issue with different ammo types at brigade/Division level and the logistical load for an armoured unit was such that having its own MMG ammo was but a tiny portion of that 'burden'
It would be an issue at Squad level etc but even then by late war most of the combatants had 2 or more calibres at Squad level 9mm/303 or .45/30carbine/30-06 etc and generally such weapons as an MMG where at a higher level anyway.
But would it not have been far quicker to put a MK2 Browning (1935) & the heavy US tank version ie M1919A4 (1936 you could get from Colt) hybrid into production if you are working in 1937 and want a tank belt feed MG in 303 quickly, as they are basically the same gun?
Buying from the US has the drawback that they want payment in dollars. Home made or empire made is paid for in sterling.
It's not an insurmountable barrier but needs to be thought through carefully before putting your national defence (even a part of it) in soneone else's hands.
It's not an insurmountable barrier but needs to be thought through carefully before putting your national defence (even a part of it) in soneone else's hands.
Or they could simply make a air cooled Vickers if thats what they wanted?
After all the 1919 is simply an air cooled 1917
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.
Again a parallel path.
Go for Garand over Mk4 ! Mk4 needs all new tooling, and most are going to be made outside the UK, Britain is too busy winding up for Bren.
An Enfield Garand with the changes BA suggested post WW1. Aperture sights (simple to train), 15rd mag over 5rd chargers (5s too hard to load in mud), heavier barrel and forget about the gas tap. Britain has Lewis and Vickers K gun with gas port!
Use the Japanese 6.5mm, converted to rimless 0.258" and fit it with a mark 7 type bullet. Less metal per round.
The Bren be made in .258", would have a straight magazine, interchangeable with rifle. Be lighter, and again less metal.
There is millions of .303" ready to be belted up for MGs. You cant throw that away. Only infantry needs SLRs in short term, the rest SMLE and Lewis.
Forget 7.92 and put energy into .258"
A simple possibly is a Winchester 1907SLR, made from old SMLE?
The mechanism is closed bolt, internal hammer. Much closer to BA mentality of the time. A "trench gun" / machine carbine, not a gangster SMG, Tommy gun.
Use stocks and wore out barrels from Mk1 SMLE. Chamber it in a short, straight sided .303" short bullet. KE of about 750j, mid way btw .30 carbine and 9mm. A weapon much shorter than M1 carbine.
Issue it as a NCOs weapon.
Much cheaper than £50 Thompsons
A possibility, the RN did use Winchesters (lever action carbines) for boarding parties in the Great War. However I'm doubtful about the will to develop an entirely new cartridge, rather than but 'off the shelf', say get BSA to copy someone's SMG in 9mm, or indeed .30 Mauser.
Mauser 7.63x 25mm is very close
Attachments
Actually most No.4’s were made in Britain.
British factories (ROF Fazakerley, ROF Maltby, and BSA) produced over 2,000,000 No.4’s. Long Branch in Ontario produced over 330,000 and numbers for Savage seem to vary based on source but are between 200,000 and 1,000,000. And this is besides the SMLE production that was actually still running for the first part of the war.
I would take a Pederson or Garand in a hot second - but the POD is 1937 the adoption of the No4 was already in the wings and switching to a new ammo at this point is going to cause issues and there are soooooo many more things that the British army needs before replacing what is an otherwise more than adequate rifle
Garand for example went into production at that time but was still not mature as a battlefield weapon and production was very slow as issues were sorted out and US troops were still fighting into 1943 with the Springfield over 5 years later
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
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?
I am also a 'fan' of enbloc clips as these are easy to carry and an 8 or 10 round enbloc clip loads faster than a pair of 5 round stripper clips and back then unless the magazine was 'BREN' standard then magazines would cause issues both in reliability and carrying them about the soldiers person.
Correction.
Outside the BSA factory...
I have a deactivated savage arms made No4 Mk1 with a mk1 'singer' sight
The suggested Garand fixes most of the production issue.
The gas cup - gone.
bent operating rod for .30-06 -gone. Straight .276" retained.
No rimmed .303" in Bren mag- fixed.
Both Enfield Garand and bren magazine can be fill with 5 rd charger.
If .276 Garand was selected in '32, it would have started production 2 years early. 1935!