British Army adopts M1 Carbine as primary rifle for Normandy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
One problem with the Sten is that it is really cheap, but its so cheap because its really crappy. To make it a universal weapon it needs proper grips, sight, and mag. Preferably the mag is underneath so it can be carried more easily.
 

Deleted member 1487

One problem with the Sten is that it is really cheap, but its so cheap because its really crappy. To make it a universal weapon it needs proper grips, sight, and mag. Preferably the mag is underneath so it can be carried more easily.
The mag underneath makes it harder to fire prone. It needed a double stack double feed mag to deal with the reliability issue, but the side mount mag wasn't really that important overall. You could have fitted a wooden handgrip to make it easier to fire/carry underneath if needed. That or created a model like the Uzi that had a hand grip mag-well.

That said the weapon you're largely describing was the Lancaster SMG...which was too expensive to mass produce according to the British. I supposed they could have just ripped off the MP40 and split the difference; thanks to it's constant recoil layout it was quite accurate at longer ranges in automatic with a bit of experience. TFBTV has a youtube video where they test it out if you want to see. It was cheaper to make than say the Lancaster, but was quality enough to be quite accurate at longer ranges.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 1487

If we assume that the Brits adopt the BSA-Kiraly smg/carbine in May 1939, right before WW2 starts and are able to save themselves money from not having to buy the Thompson and complicate their supply chain with a non-standard caliber not made in the UK, does the US consider adopting the British gun instead of creating the M1 Carbine from scratch? It would meet the stated goal of a 200m effective range (and then some) and could be lightened further if desired (for instance the barrel could be cut down and a folding stock adopted as with the Danuvia 43M). Plus there would be advantages for the US to standardize with the British a bit.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Australians solved that problem easily enough, without hanging all the weight of the magazine off to one side.
At the cost of offsetting the sights, which had it's own issues, but the hanging off to one side issue doesn't really seem to have been a big deal, I've seen Stens and Pedersen Device weapons shoot and they don't look unbalanced...you just need to keep the bursts short to prevent muzzle climb.

As an aside I'm curious about whether a Burton LMR style dual magazine setup might work for an SMG or light rifle...all the reliability of top mounted magazines, no obscured sights, ability to go prone with no obstruction, option to have a foregrip if desired, while of course having twice the magazines in place to quickly access.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Australians solved that problem easily enough, without hanging all the weight of the magazine off to one side.
The problem with a magazine on the side is that its difficult to carry in a sling behind your back. Most of the guys carrying it would be needing their hands for something else, and would have it slung behind them.
m3-submachine-gun-ww2-era-historical-history-renovated-in-pivka-museum-slovenia-soldier-looking-away-PR31RY.jpg
 
Well, BSA built several Kiraly SMGs and got the price down to 5£ in May 1939 before disinterest effectively killed the project. Then after the war started and the army realized their mistake they just bought 50£ Thompson SMGs, using cash, from the US using a non-standard caliber sourced from the US. So very late 1930s rearmament gun was the BSA-Kiraly 39M, but it was ignored and cost the British very dearly to buy US guns instead at a very high markup.

I didn't know that - what Calibre was it in? 9mmx25 Mauser?

Google fu says the BSA version was 9x19. It also says that the British rejected it 'in favor' of the Thompson (according to a comment on the Forgotten weapons Website).

I wonder if this was because the BSA weapon was not ready while Thompson production was and was also a proven weapon system?
 

Deleted member 1487

I didn't know that - what Calibre was it in? 9mmx25 Mauser?

Google fu says the BSA version was 9x19. It also says that the British rejected it 'in favor' of the Thompson (according to a comment on the Forgotten weapons Website).

I wonder if this was because the BSA weapon was not ready while Thompson production was and was also a proven weapon system?
From what they showed it was the Danuvia 39M with simplifications that BSA introduced, mainly in the overly complicated trigger mechanism. Thing is this was before Danuvia was the manufacturer, as the paper points out that it later went into production for the Hungarians with success.
They don't mention caliber, so I don't know for sure. I would assume 9x25.

Since the Thompson wasn't adopted until 1940 I doubt that was the reason it was rejected considering the insane expense of the Thompson (10x as much) before factoring in the ammo that wasn't even made in Britain.

I think the issue was that the British delayed too long on adopting it, so when there was the need for a lot of weapons ASAP they had to adopt whatever the US was willing to sell.

Maybe part of the problem of the Kiraly was that it was in 9x25mm, a caliber they didn't want or that it was overbuilt for a 9x19mm...

Edit:
Wikipedia says this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Small_Arms_Company
In 1939, BSA acquired the blueprints for a submachine gun designed by Hungarian arms designer Pál Király as well as the rights to manufacture it. Examples were produced in 9mm Mauser Export calibre according to Kiraly's design. It was estimated that these arms would only cost 5 pounds each to manufacture. However, at the time, submachine guns were viewed as "gangster weapons" and plans to manufacture it were shelved.[29]
But I can't find reference to the 9mm Export in the source cited, which is the thesis I'm using as a source. It would stand to reason as the Kiraly design was in 9mm Export (9x25), so unless BSA changed it to 9x19mm it should be in 9mm Export.
 
I see a lot of quotes about the British army calling SMGs gangster weapons and not ordering them because of this but they went ahead and ordered the Thompsons in large numbers and started getting them before the battle of France (they had a staggering 3 per battalion).

Now if any gun was going to be seen as a Gangster weapon......

The British made their first proper order of 100,000 Thompsons on 1st Feb 1940 and made a total of 13 orders during the war - this initial order was well before the first real kick ups between the British and Germans.

I am wondering if the real reason was the British armed forces greatest enemy

Interesting little factoid in that link - towards the end it talks about mid war SMG tests by both the Germans and Americans - the same gun won both trials - I won't spoil the surprise ;)
 
I'll tell you what - having been researching SMGs all day - there is one thing I have concluded - the M1 Carbine is a better choice (and lighter) than all of them ;)
 

Deleted member 1487

I see a lot of quotes about the British army calling SMGs gangster weapons and not ordering them because of this but they went ahead and ordered the Thompsons in large numbers and started getting them before the battle of France (they had a staggering 3 per battalion).

Now if any gun was going to be seen as a Gangster weapon......

The British made their first proper order of 100,000 Thompsons on 1st Feb 1940 and made a total of 13 orders during the war - this initial order was well before the first real kick ups between the British and Germans.

I am wondering if the real reason was the British armed forces greatest enemy

Interesting little factoid in that link - towards the end it talks about mid war SMG tests by both the Germans and Americans - the same gun won both trials - I won't spoil the surprise ;)
I'd like to see a source for the German tests, I'm not sure how the Sten could win other than in manufacturing cost...hence the MP 3008, which seems to shoot worse than the Sten in some of the videos of it being fired I've seen.

BTW isn't that the greatest enemy of any military?
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
do pistols count?
the swiss maintained their Schmidt M1882 revolvers until 1949,
the french had a number of MAS 1873 revolvers in reserve until the occupation
the italians were producing the Bodeo Model 1889 until 1931, and used them in the war
the brits had the webley mk VI, that entered production in 1915, but the action traces back to the mk I of 1887
the german M1879 Reichsrevolver may have seen service in ww2, but i can't confirm it

Good point. I was thinking more in terms of long arms, but an individual weapon is an individual weapon.
 
Top