British Army adopts M1 Carbine as primary rifle for Normandy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

SwampTiger

Banned
Okay, let me assume the British Army decides it needs a 200-300 yard light rifle for the Invasion of Europe after Sicily, July 1943. It chooses the M1 Carbine and M2 Automatic Carbine. The US Army is hoovering up the production of carbines at this time. The British will need to merge production of the M1/2 Carbine in place of SLEM and Sten production. Much of Sten production is in shops without the ability to make M1/2 carbines. Some delay will occur while moving Carbine production into SLEM facilities, at least three months, probably more like six to reach near SLEM production. Add in production of carbines in Canada. Will the British have enough M1/2 carbines to fill out their TO&E by June 1944? I seriously doubt they could convert more than the initial 1st wave forces.

In combat use, the British Tommies begin to discover some of the faults in the carbine. It is adequate against enemy forces under normal use. When facing dug-in German units, the M1 is handicapped by its light bullet. It has poor penetration against light cover. Suppressive fire will need substantial help from the platoon MG's. Basic maintenance of the guns is handicapped by low stocks of replacement parts and short training times. The British will like the light weight of gun and ammo. They will appreciate the increase in rate of fire.

The impact in June 1942 will be minimal at best. Added confusion and casualties at worst.

I do like the M1 Carbine. It was handicapped by its weak cartridge and late arrival.
 
Okay, let me assume the British Army decides it needs a 200-300 yard light rifle for the Invasion of Europe after Sicily, July 1943. It chooses the M1 Carbine and M2 Automatic Carbine. The US Army is hoovering up the production of carbines at this time. The British will need to merge production of the M1/2 Carbine in place of SLEM and Sten production. Much of Sten production is in shops without the ability to make M1/2 carbines. Some delay will occur while moving Carbine production into SLEM facilities, at least three months, probably more like six to reach near SLEM production. Add in production of carbines in Canada. Will the British have enough M1/2 carbines to fill out their TO&E by June 1944? I seriously doubt they could convert more than the initial 1st wave forces.
From Post #15

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
.

You know what Inland built for GM before 1941?

Steering Wheels for cars and trucks.

Underwood made Typewriters.
Zero history with firearm production. 7 months for Inland to tool up with a brand new design, ordered right off the drawing board

I can't see the British being so tardy, in going from factories that are already making firearms, albeit very crude ones, let alone waiting til mid' 43 to do it.
The time to do it is when replacing all those weapons lost in France, in 1941 as US production is starting for the Carbine

In combat use, the British Tommies begin to discover some of the faults in the carbine. It is adequate against enemy forces under normal use. When facing dug-in German units, the M1 is handicapped by its light bullet. It has poor penetration against light cover. Suppressive fire will need substantial help from the platoon MG's. Basic maintenance of the guns is handicapped by low stocks of replacement parts and short training times. The British will like the light weight of gun and ammo. They will appreciate the increase in rate of fire.

The impact in June 1942 will be minimal at best. Added confusion and casualties at worst.

I do like the M1 Carbine. It was handicapped by its weak cartridge and late arrival.

Of those faults, they really aren't mentioned by the US Marines, that used a larger percentage of Carbines over the Army.

maintaining a weapon in France is far easier than on a Pacific Island.

The big Marine complaint was small magazine size, and not being select fire.

If Carbines didn't work, they would have been literally dumped like the Reising SMGs were, but no, they were embraced.

M1/M2 are shockingly easy to train on, and average for WWII era weapons for takedown

Carbines were reliable in the field, far more than the STEN.

Then weak cartridge?

Yeah, it was less powerful than a .303

Look what was being fire out of that STEN before calling it weak. That's all that millions of Tommies had to fight a War with.
A 9mm that patterned like a shotgun
 
EM2 was made in what - double figures a total of 59 of them?

It was a prototype. It would have been amazing. Just not in the Elephant hunting round the USA decided everyone should use.

When you are in the Hurtgen Forest and the Germans are sniping anything green and moving, even if it is a deer wearing moss camouflage, do you want a rifle that put a bullet THROUGH the tree the sniper hides behind or a popgun that buries its bullet about 2 inches into the trunk? Of course you should be not be in the Hurtgen Forest in the first place, but it is what it is.

About the EM2, it is not the size of the round or the type of performance that made it suck. It was the fact it could not be field stripped and reassembled with ease under stress.
 

Deleted member 1487

When you are in the Hurtgen Forest and the Germans are sniping anything green and moving, even if it is a deer wearing moss camouflage, do you want a rifle that put a bullet THROUGH the tree the sniper hides behind or a popgun that buries its bullet about 2 inches into the trunk? Of course you should be not be in the Hurtgen Forest in the first place, but it is what it is.

About the EM2, it is not the size of the round or the type of performance that made it suck. It was the fact it could not be field stripped and reassembled with ease under stress.
Try not to fight through the Hurtgen forest...
Also US not the Brits fought through those forests. The Brits would also have the Bren and marksmen rifles to shoot through cover if needed. Plus there are things called grenades...
As to the EM-2...why would you need to disassemble the entire thing under stress? Seems like if you're in that situation you've got bigger design problems.
 
When you are in the Hurtgen Forest and the Germans are sniping anything green and moving, even if it is a deer wearing moss camouflage, do you want a rifle that put a bullet THROUGH the tree the sniper hides behind or a popgun that buries its bullet about 2 inches into the trunk? Of course you should be not be in the Hurtgen Forest in the first place, but it is what it is.

Would Private Fumbles even be able to hit the sniper with .303, .30-06 or whatnot at any appreciable range though without getting clipped themselves?
 
Try not to fight through the Hurtgen forest...
Also US not the Brits fought through those forests. The Brits would also have the Bren and marksmen rifles to shoot through cover if needed. Plus there are things called grenades...
As to the EM-2...why would you need to disassemble the entire thing under stress? Seems like if you're in that situation you've got bigger design problems.

Troops with rifles that don't work, are under stress, and when they have to take the rifles apart to clear them... Some people remember what that was like.

The Americans put rounds THROUGH trees. Germans gave up that idea.
 
Would Private Fumbles even be able to hit the sniper with .303, .30-06 or whatnot at any appreciable range though without getting clipped themselves?

Odds and evens: 7 to 6. Apparently Joe Infantry did well under the miserable conditions, but could not punch through the Germans. Of course if Joe had, this little thing called The Bulge would not have hsppened. Dumb WWI type fight.
 

Deleted member 1487

Troops with rifles that don't work, are under stress, and when they have to take the rifles apart to clear them... Some people remember what that was like.

The Americans put rounds THROUGH trees. Germans gave up that idea.
If you're talking about the M16 in 1967, the M1/2 Carbine did not have that reliability problem.

If you're reduced to shooting through trees with your service rifle, things aren't going great. The M16 didn't have that ability, but when it worked it was praised for it's utility in jungle fighting. Not sure how that fits into your conception of forest fighting.
 
If you're talking about the M16 in 1967, the M1/2 Carbine did not have that reliability problem.

If you're reduced to shooting through trees with your service rifle, things aren't going great. The M16 didn't have that ability, but when it worked it was praised for it's utility in jungle fighting. Not sure how that fits into your conception of forest fighting.

Forest Fighting? Jungle?

battle-in-the-wilderness-1864-civil-war-virginia-daniel-hagerman.jpg


Hurtgen Forest was not the Americans first rodeo.
 
Troops with rifles that don't work, are under stress, and when they have to take the rifles apart to clear them... Some people remember what that was like.
The trick is to have rifles that don't jam in combat. Regular cleaning and proper lubrication tends to help.
 
Ok? That's not a counter argument.

Yes; it is. The Americans had to go through Hurtgen Forest. Geography.

The trick is to have rifles that don't jam in combat. Regular cleaning and proper lubrication tends to help.

Remember those Marines on Guadalcanal and their Johnson rifles? All those screws, cams and springs they were NOT supposed to take apart in the module? They were trained to take apart and clean their best friend at every opportunity. Lesson for designer. KISS the rifle. Overthink the cyclic and the rifle turns into a club, the first time Joe Private reassembles it wrong. Not the trooper's fault. Not the soldier's fault. It is the gunmaker's fault.

If punching through trees is the primary consideration, why not just equip with service rifles in .416 Rigby so you can just knock the trees over instead of worrying about punching through them?

You deal with reality as you find it. Ridiculous can only be pushed so far. Since troops were trained to fight from cover, the idea was to give attackers something that punches through cover. Look, a lot of WWI retro-thinking is why the conservatives wanted to keep the battle rifle.

Close quarters in the woods is no fun. Accounts from the American civil war, Spanish American War, WWI, WWII and Vietnam make it clear that belt-buckle fighting is playing the defenders' game. I don't account recent warfare in the Middle East because there, the terrain makes snipers and expert marksmen a prized commodity and makes me wonder if a carbine, there, is a mistake. Did you know battle rifles trace to there? The British needed long ranged rifles to fight in their 19th century colonial wars. I mean before smokeless powders.
 
Yes; it is. The Americans had to go through Hurtgen Forest. Geography.



Remember those Marines on Guadalcanal and their Johnson rifles? All those screws, cams and springs they were NOT supposed to take apart in the module? They were trained to take apart and clean their best friend at every opportunity. Lesson for designer. KISS the rifle. Overthink the cyclic and the rifle turns into a club, the first time Joe Private reassembles it wrong. Not the trooper's fault. Not the soldier's fault. It is the gunmaker's fault.



You deal with reality as you find it. Ridiculous can only be pushed so far. Since troops were trained to fight from cover, the idea was to give attackers something that punches through cover. Look, a lot of WWI retro-thinking is why the conservatives wanted to keep the battle rifle.

Close quarters in the woods is no fun. Accounts from the American civil war, Spanish American War, WWI, WWII and Vietnam make it clear that belt-buckle fighting is playing the defenders' game. I don't account recent warfare in the Middle East because there, the terrain makes snipers and expert marksmen a prized commodity and makes me wonder if a carbine, there, is a mistake. Did you know battle rifles trace to there? The British needed long ranged rifles to fight in their 19th century colonial wars. I mean before smokeless powders.
Because at no point in the History of the British Empire was there ever a battle involving a lot of hills or trees, or actual effing jungle ....
black-watch-advance-at-battle-of-amoaful-third-anglo-ashanti-war-first-KG7TDG.jpg

... that's The Black Watch at the Battle of Amoaful, in the 3rd Anglo-Ashanti War.:rolleyes:
 
When you are in the Hurtgen Forest and the Germans are sniping anything green and moving, even if it is a deer wearing moss camouflage, do you want a rifle that put a bullet THROUGH the tree the sniper hides behind or a popgun that buries its bullet about 2 inches into the trunk?
Knew a Vet who managed not to get killed or wounded there.

Bullets are very good at going thru trees.
He said that if the tree wasn't so large in diameter that you were unable to clasp your hands, it was too skinny and AP from an MG-42 would go right thru it, and into whatever poor bastard who thought it was Cover.

If it was a sniper, they wouldn't bother shooting thru cover, they would wait for a straight killshot. He said the nastiest snipers had an unbelievable amount of patience.

And a sniper wouldn't be using an M2 Carbine.

He might use the M3, if in the Pacific.
Active IR was very successful at taking out Japanese infiltrators
Right tool for the Job.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
The British screwed it up. Same problems encountered with the Johnson Carbine and LMG. Designers forget the enduser.

Wait, you're saying ordnance experts should design their death rays to be used successfully by an 18-year-old Private Snuffy who may or not be literate or even know their left from the right, and in the rain, the snow, the sand, and the mud? ;)
 
Wait, you're saying ordnance experts should design their death rays to be used successfully by an 18-year-old Private Snuffy who may or not be literate or even know their left from the right, and in the rain, the snow, the sand, and the mud? ;)

Sure am. Too many gee whiz BS weapons get pushed.

oicw.jpg
 
Remember those Marines on Guadalcanal and their Johnson rifles? All those screws, cams and springs they were NOT supposed to take apart in the module? They were trained to take apart and clean their best friend at every opportunity. Lesson for designer. KISS the rifle. Overthink the cyclic and the rifle turns into a club, the first time Joe Private reassembles it wrong. Not the trooper's fault. Not the soldier's fault. It is the gunmaker's fault.

If you're taking something apart that you're not supposed to take apart then it's either your fault, the fault of the person who trained you incorrectly or the fault of the person who designed your training incorrectly, not the person who made the thing.
 
not an answer
1. Better aerodynamics at flyout at longer ranges.
2. Ramp feed.
3. Means a.s.s.a.u.l.t. rifle masquerading as a carbine. The M1 carbine is a personal defense rifle, not a weapon with enough reach.
  1. the m1's not meant for that, it's a replacement for the 1911's normally carried by officers and support troops
  2. needs a major redesign of the gun
  3. then maybe the m1 shouldn't be the main shoulder arm of a fighting force
you're trying to make it into something it can't be

I can't see the British being so tardy, in going from factories that are already making firearms, albeit very crude ones, let alone waiting til mid' 43 to do it.
The time to do it is when replacing all those weapons lost in France, in 1941 as US production is starting for the Carbine
these are fairly different circumstances, though
the us could afford the time to switch from car parts to rifles, the british can't afford to shut down their current rifle production in order to switch over to the m1, they are already expanding their arms production as fast as they can, and there's a lot of elements in the m1's that don't really fit into what production they do have
 
Top