British Army adopts M1 Carbine as primary rifle for Normandy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

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?
 
Given the controllability issues experienced in Korea the semi-auto version was enough.
The M2 was far easier for me to keep on target than a Thompson with FA. The only two things better on the Thompson was the magazine design, and the looks of it. Otherwise it's twice as heavy, and a lot harder to hit targets at 200yards

To Me, the only things the M2 needed was a robust folding stock(M1 Para was fail on that) and the Magazine design improved.
Making it the .22 Spitfire would have been icing on that cake.
My Uncle, who was in both Korea and Vietnam, liked the M1 Garand and the PPsh, the latter for being a short range bullet hose when dug in.
In Vietnam, he Traded to get the Carbine and ammo from the local ARVN, as he really disliked the initial M16 for being unreliable
 
Poor penetration, not even getting through Chinese padded uniforms in Korea!
That more a problem with the powder selection, than than the cartridge itself. It's not wrote about as much, but some WWII 45 lots were underpowered in extreme cold.
I've noticed in reloading 12 gauge shells, some powders aren't nearly as good under 20 degrees as the are at 30
 

Deleted member 1487

Poor penetration, not even getting through Chinese padded uniforms in Korea!
Not a problem noted in WW2. Likely it was a function of using old WW2 ammo (non-corrosive primers don't age as well and the M1 depended on those due to it's gas operating system), the extreme cold which likely impacted the round nosed bullet thanks to the denser air and the old powder/primers in the surplus ammo, and of course the likely misses that happened as a result of combat panic. In WW2 most noted that it was accurate out to at least 200m and even accuracy at 300 yards was still acceptable. Plus I've read combat reports from Korea where there were no problems penetrating Chinese clothing even at 150 yards. In WW2 there were plenty of reports of it penetrating Japanese body armor at 150 yards as well.

The M2 was far easier for me to keep on target than a Thompson with FA.
Interesting, I've hear the exact opposite.

To Me, the only things the M2 needed was a robust folding stock(M1 Para was fail on that) and the Magazine design improved.
Making it the .22 Spitfire would have been icing on that cake.
My Uncle, who was in both Korea and Vietnam, liked the M1 Garand and the PPsh, the latter for being a short range bullet hose when dug in.
In Vietnam, he Traded to get the Carbine and ammo from the local ARVN, as he really disliked the initial M16 for being unreliable
I haven't heard any negative comments on the M1A1 folding stock, but have heard issues with the short magazines.
I'd imagine the PPSH was a fine FPF weapon within 50m.
And yes the .22 Spitfire or even Gustafson would have been a knockout within 300m given tests done with it:
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0022349
 

Deleted member 1487

I do wonder why they didn't give the .30 Carbine a Spitzer bullet.
There was a 150 grain high pressure test bullet:
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/11/6/rifleman-qa-belt-fed-30-carbine/
belt.jpg


Supposedly it was used to pressure test barrels.
With a steel core or made from solid steel to lower the weight and reduce the pressure it should work with a redesign of the chamber of the M1 Carbine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I consider the M1 carbine to be the best small arm of the war.

So yes knowing what I know today - I would replace the No 4 and Sten gun with it and use the saved weight in ammo and weapon weight possibly double up on the Bren guns in a section.

Sten gun = 3.2 KGs
No 4 = 4.2 KGs
M1 Carbine = 2.6 KGs loaded and with a sling!

Light and accurate, ammunition that did not corrode in damp 'moist' conditions and was itself light and powerful enough for most combat ranges.

The only issue with the weapon was the crappy magazines - GIs got around this by replacing them with new ones as often as possible (and had the Logi to allow this)

And I understand that the padded jacket penetration issue has been debunked - up there with the Garand 'ping' getting GI's killed or Axis soldiers getting killed because GI's simulated the Garand 'ping' and the Bren gun being rubbish because it was 'Too Accurate'.
 

Deleted member 1487

I consider the M1 carbine to be the best small arm of the war.

So yes knowing what I know today - I would replace the No 4 and Sten gun with it and use the saved weight in ammo and weapon weight possibly double up on the Bren guns in a section.

Sten gun = 3.2 KGs
No 4 = 4.2 KGs
M1 Carbine = 2.6 KGs loaded and with a sling!

Light and accurate, ammunition that did not corrode in damp 'moist' conditions and was itself light and powerful enough for most combat ranges.

The only issue with the weapon was the crappy magazines - GIs got around this by replacing them with new ones as often as possible (and had the Logi to allow this)
Lionel Wigram, one of the main proponents of battle drill and basing training on operations research result, after experiencing combat in Sicily and Italy recommended that the Bren effectively be made a platoon weapon firing in support of the riflemen from a distance, as they tended to lag behind the rest of the section and not be available when needed during an advance (being 9-10x heavier than the M1 Carbine sans ammo and extra barrel was the major reason there). So I'm not sure more Brens was the answer for the British squad/section, as much as a reorganization of the platoon into specific roles (LMGs using their range from the rear of the platoon, riflemen using their maneuverability and speed to carry out the assault); the Germans started adopting that model of squad too when they could get enough StGs to equip the riflemen with.
 

Deleted member 94680

Would there be an operational impact in rearming and retraining the entire British (and Commonwealth?) Army mid-War?

Manuals would have to be rewritten, instructors retrained (plenty would “know better”) and ammunition supplies completely replaced. All this whilst, presumably, the British are still fighting in Italy, the Far East and Africa?

Maybe having it ready for Korea is more achievable? Units of Commandos or Paratroopers are issued M1s for Market Garden or something and the results are favourable?

I also think a British “M1 analogue” is more likely than straight up issuing the British American weapons in bulk quantities.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
Thoughts, comments, opinions?

Interesting idea, the M-1 as a predecessor "assault rifle," but logistically and chronologically impossible.

The British had challenges re-equipping their forces with British standard weapons after the losses in France in 1940; there's a reason they asked for US M1917s, which as a bolt-action Mauser type in US .30 (and the Pattern 1913 equivalents in .303) were actually more modern designs than the SMLE. They were happy to get re-manufactured Ross rifles in .303 in 1940.

Beyond that, the M-1 didn't go into production and general issue until 1942.
 
Last edited:

Driftless

Donor
What about Re-arming the British Fourteenth Army in Burma with the M-1 Carbine? Certainly, the M-1 was useful in jungle warfare elsewhere.
 
The British had challenges re-equipping their forces with British standard weapons after the losses in France in 1940; there's a reason they asked for US M1917s, which as a bolt-action Mauser type in US .30 (and the Pattern 1913 equivalents in .303) were actually more modern designs than the SMLE. They were happy to get re-manufactured Ross rifles in .303 in 1940.

A plea goes out to the USA, we need an inexpensive rifle to arm our brave Tommys.

Problem is, the M1 was still in development
From Forgotten Weapons
The US Light Rifle Program was the search for the weapon that would eventually become the M1 Carbine, issued by the millions in World War II and in the years after. While the M1 Carbine is a familiar item to all military rifle enthusiasts, the other rifles submitted to the Army trials are largely unknown.


The program began on October 1, 1940 when the Ordnance Department release a five page request for designs. The primary requirements for the rifle were a weight of not more than 5 pounds (with sling), effective range of 300 yards, and capability for both semiauto and fully automatic fire. The rifles had to use the .30 Carbine cartridge developed with Winchester from the .32WSL. Tests would begin a mere 4 months later, on February 1st, 1941.


Due to delays in producing the new cartridges, the tests were ultimately delayed until May of 1941. By that time, there were nine rifles submitted to the tests. Two were immediately rejected – Mr Simpson of Springfield armory had submitted a rifle that weight 6lb 10oz, and this was deemed too heavy to consider. There was also a variant of the White gas operated rifle submitted, but it was chambered for the .276 cartridge, and rejected for that reason.

So things need to be sped up.

Here, the UK looked into the bit of pipe that ended up as the STEN MkI by mid 1940, and production started later that year
sten_mkI.jpg

And then the call, make it cheaper!

So the Flash hider and a few bit were removed, getting the STEN MkI* I believe around 100k examples of the decent quality STEN were
produced before...

followed by 'No, eye bleedingly _cheap_' and then the Mk II that was around 2 Pounds, or just under $10 as the exchange rate went then, the Carbine was around $45, Garand $82, and the very spendy prewar Thompson at over $200

So the STEN MK II is what it should have been, a cheap, nasty, temporary firearm till US, Canadian and UK production of the now named Universal Carbine in produced in 1942 would reach the troops

OTL
Inland Manufacturing Division of GM Nov 5 Tool Room Prototypes
Winchester Repeating Arms Co. Dec 41 5 Tool Room Prototypes
Inland (GM) May 42 start, Sept 43 end, 999994 produced
Winchester Sept 42 start, Feb 44 end, 350000 produced
Underwood Nov 42 Start, Jul 43 end 100000 produced.

Inland and Underwood had never built a gun before. 6 Months fro GM to go from prototype to mass production.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
A plea goes out to the USA, we need an inexpensive rifle to arm our brave Tommys.
So the STEN MK II is what it should have been, a cheap, nasty, temporary firearm till US, Canadian and UK production of the now named Universal Carbine in produced in 1942 would reach the troops

OTL
Inland Manufacturing Division of GM Nov 5 Tool Room Prototypes
Winchester Repeating Arms Co. Dec 41 5 Tool Room Prototypes
Inland (GM) May 42 start, Sept 43 end, 999994 produced
Winchester Sept 42 start, Feb 44 end, 350000 produced
Underwood Nov 42 Start, Jul 43 end 100000 produced.

Inland and Underwood had never built a gun before. 6 Months fro GM to go from prototype to mass production.

That's still only ~1.4 million weapons.

When the British (and Australians, Canadians, Indians, etc.) had millions of .303 rifles and hundreds of millions of .303 rounds, inertia alone is going to prevent any sort of wholesale re-equipment, reorganization, retraining, etc.
 
That's still only ~1.4 million weapons.

When the British (and Australians, Canadians, Indians, etc.) had millions of .303 rifles and hundreds of millions of .303 rounds, inertia alone is going to prevent any sort of wholesale re-equipment, reorganization, retraining, etc.
That was just those starting manufacture in 1942, and other companies made a total of around 6 million during the war, vs 4M for the STEN.
By 1945, around a Dozen companies were making them

Those troops with 303 Rifles can keep them, just as you could find Springfields used during the War. Just not as much new manufacture. Plenty of machine guns to use existing stocks of 303.

And after some troops making due with the STEN over 1941 and 1942, will be glad to get higher quality weapons that allow accurate shooting out to 300m, some no Mk of STEN could do
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
That was just those starting manufacture in 1942, and other companies made a total of around 6 million during the war, vs 4M for the STEN.
By 1945, around a Dozen companies were making them. Those troops with 303 Rifles can keep them, just as you could find Springfields used during the War. Just not as much new manufacture. Plenty of machine guns to use existing stocks of 303. And after some troops making due with the STEN over 1941 and 1942, will be glad to get higher quality weapons that allow accurate shooting out to 300m, some no Mk of STEN could do

Except the infantry battalions of 1941-42 armed with the standard mix of SMLEs, Brens, and Stens are going to be the same infantry battalions of 1943-44, and armed in the same way (other than the Indians having VB LMGs). The effective British/Commonwealth/Imperial order of battle didn't change much after 1942, other than the 6th Airborne Division being activated in 1943 (and even then, a significant amount of the division was already active at the brigade level or below).

The British weren't happy with the SMLE in 1910, but the Pattern 1913 came too late to go into production for WW I; this idea will face the same reality in 1942.
 
Wiking, you almost read my mind; I'm now down on the idea that the best possible practical change for the British Empire land forces in WW2 is to lean into some mix of the M1 carbine, Thompson and Owen in either .30 carbine, a hot .35 WSL (yes, the shorter .35, not the longer .351), or a revived 8.5mm Mars. Essentially, an autoloader round with ballistic power in the range of what modern .357 Magnum generates from extra long barreled revolvers; that is, muzzle energy starting from around 900 foot pounds, 1220 joules, ranging to the M1's 967 ft lb or 1311 J. More powerful than the SMG pistol rounds of the era, but not too overpowered for the two blowback designs I mention (which is what a true intermediate powered round would be; IIRC Othias from the Youtube channel C&Rsenal stated that the prototype Thompson in .351 WSL---a cartridge as powerful as 7.92mm Kurz---must have been terrifying to use.)

Certainly Auto Ordinance did a prototype 1928 Tommy in .30 carbine, https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/10/20/thompson-tommy-gun-smg-30-carbine-version/ , while the Owen Gun design team had an idea for moving up to .30 carbine.

I throw in the other two rounds as possibilities simply because they did exist in OTL with 180 (Winchester) and 139 (Mars) grain projectiles, either of which are in or right next to the range of bullet weights that all militaries at that time used for their main shoulder weapons. While I don't think the 110 gr M1 projectile is underweight, if our hypothetical Imperial War Cabinet/Defence Committee rearmament programme wanted to up the size or go seriously spitzer (and therefore increase the length) of .30 cal, I can see everybodies' US ordinance pal, Colonel Rene Studler, being unenthusiastic, and getting the Pentagon to declare 'you guys have to make your own ammo if you want a carbine load that's no longer compatible with our existing carbine receivers/mags.'

In which case, the much heavier (therefore better momentum generating) .35 WSL +P concept starts to look appealing, as does the more modestly heavier 8.5mm Mars with its shorter bottlenecked case that will headspace more easily in mass produced weapons.
 
An alternative to the same end is a more powerful SMG cartridge with an SMG to match. The 9x25 Mauser Export will do the trick to 200 yards and the longer 9mm is just within simple blowback operation with a heavier bolt and return spring plus a bit of a buffer. The weight goes up maybe 15% and the cost 10% or so. Machining time is little changed. Making the new ammunition is not a major change for existing machinery.

Even nicer if you add a better stock, bipod sights etc. but simple means quicker issue to the troops. In the meantime the proper rifle factories can change to Bren making whilst the assortment of OTL contractors and sub contractors deal with the MaxiSten. The ammunition makers take the first action of building up stocks of 9mm MaxiSten ammunition. I suppose one could use the 7.62x25 version, the same as the Soviet Tokarev. Possibly the easiest size of the two to make barrels in quantity would be the decider.

This would be faster to get into the hands of the millions of troops than a fully machined M1 carbine and fit the 200 yard gap quite adequately as well as easing the tasks of carrying 2" mortars, PIATs etc. and their ammunition.

Existing Stens and 9x19 ammunition will do perfectly well for non front line users until they can be phased out, which would probably be post war.
 
Top