https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_Individual_Combat_WeaponSo part of that kludge looks like it was an M-16, once upon a time. The rest of it?
bottom gun is an xm8, ont op is a 25 mm grenade launcher that ended up being turned into the XM25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_Individual_Combat_WeaponSo part of that kludge looks like it was an M-16, once upon a time. The rest of it?
These were all significant engineering factories with complex machinery (or access to new machinery) and skilled workers for at least a training cadre for new staff.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 1941 the British are opening entire NEW factories to build the NEW No 4 Mk 1 as well as continuing production of the existing No 1 Mk 3 in some older plants and through sub contracting. Other rifles than the No 4 could have been made in some or all of the new plants if the British had wished to.'7 months for Inland to tool up with a brand new design, ordered right off the drawing board'. A cessation of 7 months production in the flat out existing war economy of the UK is worse than regular visits from Mr Goering's nice Luftwaffe. At least the existing machinery and patterns usually survive him popping in to drop off some presents.
True. Fazakerly, Maltby and Shirley. They are coming on line in 1941 and planning was very early 1941 at best. The invasion scare was still perceived as real. The army was short of infantry small arms, the Home Guard standard was ex US small arms to meet the Germans at home. What might they have chosen to make instead of the No4 which was a known and very serviceable item within existing training and logistics? A serious question not a put down. It would have to be something using rimmed .303" and a certain success in use. I can think of several possibilities but none that meet the necessary criteria of the day. By the time of arming of infantry for Overlord these 3 factories are in constant No4 production so a change later means forgoing existing rifle production. The Sten sidestepped that by going outside the small arms factories. Way too early for an M1 Carbine.In 1941 the British are opening entire NEW factories to build the NEW No 4 Mk 1 as well as continuing production of the existing No 1 Mk 3 in some older plants and through sub contracting. Other rifles than the No 4 could have been made in some or all of the new plants if the British had wished to.
They had that:My preferred option would be for Britain to have got hold of some SVT 38's from the Finns during the Winter War and done some work adapting them to .303 and smooth out a few kinks coming out with a British SVT 40 optimised for mass production.
Thats fine. They should have tweaked the STEN to put grips and a better magazine on it and called it done. Having said that they did fine with what they did. If the US had been in a similar situation they would have been wise to do similarly but they had the option to go with an M1 before they started heavy ramp up.The British did not screw it up. They recognised the need (see the report that began the subject) but also recognised that the latter part of the war was not the time to change everything and had the Sten in service to mix with the No4. To address the issue and rearm the infantry was something to attend to post war. They then decided on an assault rifle. To whit the No9 which was specifically to replace both the No4 and Sten in all their roles..
BTW the lack of need to use aimed individual fire at very long ranges was recognised in WW1 and prompted the removal of the volley sights. The .303" in the No4 would fire out to long distances anyway so the sights were marked according to the capability of the weapon, if not the average user. In the simplified No4 with 'flip' rear sights they sighted to 300 and 500 yards only.
Except they weren't reliable, not even the lower power of the .303 vs the 54R round would help in thatMy preferred option would be for Britain to have got hold of some SVT 38's from the Finns during the Winter War and done some work adapting them to .303 and smooth out a few kinks coming out with a British SVT 40 optimised for mass production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_Individual_Combat_Weapon
bottom gun is an xm8, ont op is a 25 mm grenade launcher that ended up being turned into the XM25
Some US Army non combat units for example were still using M1903s when they invaded Germany!
The Six US Marine Divisions, of roughly 17,000 men, had over 10k Carbines to 5k Garands. M2 carbines were coming in for Okinawa, supplanting the M1. This was the 1944 F series TO. The early 1943 D Series Division bad near equal numbers of Carbines and Garands, with under 500 M1903 aithorized.The point being, none of the Allies - even the smallest contingents - saw the concept of equipping a line infantry battalion (or anything more) with M1 or M2 carbines as a standard weapon appears to have been put in practice. Even the special operations units - the British Army and RM commandos, for example - were not equipped in such a way.
The Six US Marine Divisions, of roughly 17,000 men, had over 10k Carbines to 5k Garands. M2 carbines were coming in for Okinawa, supplanting the M1. This was the 1944 F series TO. The early 1943 D Series Division bad near equal numbers of Carbines and Garands, with under 500 M1903 aithorized.
Over 500000 M2 carbines were made new by the end of the war, and an undetermined number of conversion kits that anyone with a TM could accomplish. It was an almost a drop in kit, just some wood needed to be inletted.
The Six US Marine Divisions, of roughly 17,000 men, had over 10k Carbines to 5k Garands. M2 carbines were coming in for Okinawa, supplanting the M1. This was the 1944 F series TO. The early 1943 D Series Division bad near equal numbers of Carbines and Garands, with under 500 M1903 aithorized.
Over 500000 M2 carbines were made new by the end of the war, and an undetermined number of conversion kits that anyone with a TM could accomplish. It was an almost a drop in kit, just some wood needed to be inletted.
One could argue with justification that the primary rifle for the US military was the M1 carbine, with the M1 rifle for specialized combat units.
That was just for the first contract. I think I land made 1.5M more on the next contract that continued thru war's endWhat did Inland and Underwood produce after stopping M1 Carbine production in 1943? Could they have built another 100,000 carbines for the British in fall 1943?
You somehow think Marines wouldn't have had that Carbine percentage had they deployed East rather than West?Presumed this should have been obvious, but the USMC did not deploy any infantry battalions to the ETO in 1944-45.