Deleted member 1487
So in reading about the development of the EM-2 rifle and .280 cartridge, as well as the battle drill school and it's relationship with operations research, and few things jumped out at me. It was recommended that the British adopt the Sten Gun as the primary infantry arm, because it was judged that it was easier to use for the average shooter, easier to get a hit with in combat conditions out to 300 meters(!), and a lot more ammo could be carried thanks to how light the weapon and ammo were.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402390903189626
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._and_the_British_Army_in_the_Second_World_War
Also the number of 200 meters kept coming up in the reading, both as the distance the British infantry had to cover on their own after artillery had moved over an enemy position (infantry was to keep 200m behind artillery cover in rolling barrages) and that at that range the Germans would open fire even it not under artillery bombardment (they learned to keep quiet until the enemy got within 200m so their fire would have maximum effect and ammo wouldn't be wasted). This was well known thanks to operations research by 1943 and confirmed in Sicily and Italy. Sten ballistics at 200m aren't particularly great, so even suppressive fire is unlikely to have been accurate enough at that range, but still better than what a bolt action rifle could achieve on the run especially without reloading. So it would see that the M1 Carbine would be pretty ideal as a main infantry weapon given the importance of artillery preparation for British operations, which allowed them to provide cover to within at least 200m, cover often allowed infantry to even get without 100m without issue especially in Italy and Normandy as confirmed by operations research. Max effective range (by WW2 US Army marksman unit standards) is listed as about 300 yards, so getting reliable hits at 200m shouldn't be an issue. Ammo weight wouldn't be much more than 9mm parabellum, while the weight of the rifle is no more and IIRC less than the Sten, while having a better sight length for accuracy due to the length of the barrel. Being close bolt it wouldn't have the drop fire issue the Sten did either or magazine problems.
Of course that was ignored by the powers that were because of traditionalism among leadership and it was only after the fighting ended that a serious effort at reforming infantry weapons and tactics was taken, but what if they had recognized that OPOR was right and actually acted during the war based on those recommendations, adopting the US 200m rifle early enough to make sure Normandy division front line infantry had the M1 Carbine? For starters it would have helped with logistics by having a single rifle caliber rather than 9mm+.303, while standardizing in part with the US.
Before the chorus of "but small arms don't matter" starts, per British studies of combat in Normandy and Italy a major problem the British infantry had was attacks breaking down as the Germans reemerged once suppressive artillery barrages passed over them and separated them from artillery cover. By that time the infantry were often too close to get artillery support, so were left to their own devices to deal with enemy defenses, which turned into quite the problem for bolt action rifle equipped infantry especially if their Bren couldn't get into action when and where needed. OPOR found serious problems with the much heavier Bren keeping up the rest of the riflemen in a section, plus of course the serious malingerer problem reducing the firepower of a section quite badly (1/3rd are 'gutful men', 1/3rd might follow, 1/3d would fall back from fighting), which means at least a semi-auto rifle with light enough ammo to allow infantry to have enough supply to storm a position and hold it against the inevitable counterattack was vital to advancing and making the advance stick. It has been argued that the slow pace of the British advance on Caen for instance was in part caused by this vital lack of firepower at the 'bleeding edge' of combat when artillery and infantry coordination broke down, which helped lead to the British Army finally recognizing the need for their own assault rifle rather than a rifle+smg+lmg infantry weapon mish-mash.
Thoughts, comments, opinions?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402390903189626
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._and_the_British_Army_in_the_Second_World_War
Also the number of 200 meters kept coming up in the reading, both as the distance the British infantry had to cover on their own after artillery had moved over an enemy position (infantry was to keep 200m behind artillery cover in rolling barrages) and that at that range the Germans would open fire even it not under artillery bombardment (they learned to keep quiet until the enemy got within 200m so their fire would have maximum effect and ammo wouldn't be wasted). This was well known thanks to operations research by 1943 and confirmed in Sicily and Italy. Sten ballistics at 200m aren't particularly great, so even suppressive fire is unlikely to have been accurate enough at that range, but still better than what a bolt action rifle could achieve on the run especially without reloading. So it would see that the M1 Carbine would be pretty ideal as a main infantry weapon given the importance of artillery preparation for British operations, which allowed them to provide cover to within at least 200m, cover often allowed infantry to even get without 100m without issue especially in Italy and Normandy as confirmed by operations research. Max effective range (by WW2 US Army marksman unit standards) is listed as about 300 yards, so getting reliable hits at 200m shouldn't be an issue. Ammo weight wouldn't be much more than 9mm parabellum, while the weight of the rifle is no more and IIRC less than the Sten, while having a better sight length for accuracy due to the length of the barrel. Being close bolt it wouldn't have the drop fire issue the Sten did either or magazine problems.
Of course that was ignored by the powers that were because of traditionalism among leadership and it was only after the fighting ended that a serious effort at reforming infantry weapons and tactics was taken, but what if they had recognized that OPOR was right and actually acted during the war based on those recommendations, adopting the US 200m rifle early enough to make sure Normandy division front line infantry had the M1 Carbine? For starters it would have helped with logistics by having a single rifle caliber rather than 9mm+.303, while standardizing in part with the US.
Before the chorus of "but small arms don't matter" starts, per British studies of combat in Normandy and Italy a major problem the British infantry had was attacks breaking down as the Germans reemerged once suppressive artillery barrages passed over them and separated them from artillery cover. By that time the infantry were often too close to get artillery support, so were left to their own devices to deal with enemy defenses, which turned into quite the problem for bolt action rifle equipped infantry especially if their Bren couldn't get into action when and where needed. OPOR found serious problems with the much heavier Bren keeping up the rest of the riflemen in a section, plus of course the serious malingerer problem reducing the firepower of a section quite badly (1/3rd are 'gutful men', 1/3rd might follow, 1/3d would fall back from fighting), which means at least a semi-auto rifle with light enough ammo to allow infantry to have enough supply to storm a position and hold it against the inevitable counterattack was vital to advancing and making the advance stick. It has been argued that the slow pace of the British advance on Caen for instance was in part caused by this vital lack of firepower at the 'bleeding edge' of combat when artillery and infantry coordination broke down, which helped lead to the British Army finally recognizing the need for their own assault rifle rather than a rifle+smg+lmg infantry weapon mish-mash.
Thoughts, comments, opinions?