British Army adopts M1 Carbine as primary rifle for Normandy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
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.

Subsequent history shows that in practice dedicated 'heavier' automatic weapons were retained at Section and Squad level through the cold war and beyond.

It is only recently that we see lighter automatic weapons displace them.

A loaded Bren = 11.5 KGs - the reason for its adoption was to provide a mobile Machine gun that could maintain a relatively high rate of fire compared to the Lewis gun which while only slightly heavier was far far more difficult to reload, move and maintain and did not have a QC barrel.

The 1938+ British Section was effectively 9 Riflemen supporting a Bren gunner - their entire organization and equipment (chest pouches etc) was dedicated to it

I note that the NATO squad or Section throughout most of the cold war retained the 'heavy' GPMG (FN MAG/M60/MG3) and in some cases a second LMG (Royal Marines retained the L4 Bren gun at Section level) and later on we see the twin fire team setup with 1 FN Minimi in each fireteam and they are about 8 or slightly more KGs loaded.

While MG42s were initially removed from German sections armed with STG44s my understanding is that they soon made a reappearance - it was the same story with the US Army introducing the M1919A5 down to Platoon and section level and post war attempting to provide Squad level firepower with the M14 and heavy barreled versions of that weapon (M15?) and the Canadians using the C2 heavy barreled C1 (FN FAL) - in both cases ultimately the GPMG was adopted at Squad / section level.

So maybe a second weapon is not required here if the No4s are replaced as the M1 Carbine would provided greater sustained firepower and more ammunition for both the Carbine and the Bren.
 
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.

It would only have to rearm the fighting units - Infantry companies, Engineers and artillery units (and then not all of them) - rear echelon and supporting units do not require rearming with the carbine in time for Normandy so 1.4 million weapons should serve.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
The situation immediately after 1940 and in 1942 are quite different from a production standpoint. What the UK did out of desperation in 1940-41 isn't indicative of production ability by 1942, either in the US or UK; as it was the UK got quite a few of them and could have asked for more from the US and set up their own production line to supplement what they get from the US.

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.
I'm not talking about reequipping the entire British military globally with the M1 Carbine, just those divisions headed to Normandy in 1944 due to production constraints.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
If they wanted to go that route, they did have that option pre-war when they were considering adopting the Hungarian Danuvia 39M as an SMG, but the army turned it down as a 'gangster weapon'. The estimated cost to produce was about 5£, twice that of a Sten.
It was too powerful a round to use with simple blowback without using an excessively heavy bolt, which made automatic fire difficult. Which is why the Danuvia used a lever delayed blowback system that ironically was developed and used for the .30 Carbine cartridge in Cuba and the Dominican Republic:
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/submachine-guns/danuvia-39m/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danuvia_43M_submachine_gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristóbal_Carbine

If they wanted they could lengthen the case slightly and add a 7.62 spitzer bullet to it, steel cored to lower the weight and get it down to 125 grains (from the 150 grains of a flat base lead core 7.62mm bullet), in line with the standard weight of a 9mm bullet. So then they have a 7.62x30mm case that is fatter than the .30 carbine, so holds slightly more powder. Alternatively they could, in hindsight, use a .22 bullet with it...
http://municion.org/22/22Tokarev.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not talking about reequipping the entire British military globally with the M1 Carbine, just those divisions headed to Normandy in 1944 due to production constraints.
That is still a huge undertaking, 21st Army Group was not a small force.

21st Army Group

21st Army Group formation badge.
Active 1943–45
Country United Kingdom
Branch
23px-Flag_of_the_British_Army_%281938-present%29.svg.png
British Army
Type Army Group
Size 1,020,581 officers and men (excluding US forces)
9,248 tanks
6,584 artillery pieces
1,600 aircraft (2nd Tactical Air Force)[1]
Part of Allied Expeditionary Force
Commanders
Notable
commanders
Bernard Paget
Bernard Montgomery
 

Deleted member 1487

That is still a huge undertaking, 21st Army Group was not a small force.

21st Army Group

21st Army Group formation badge.
Active 1943–45
Country United Kingdom
Branch
23px-Flag_of_the_British_Army_%281938-present%29.svg.png
British Army
Type Army Group
Size 1,020,581 officers and men (excluding US forces)
9,248 tanks
6,584 artillery pieces
1,600 aircraft (2nd Tactical Air Force)[1]
Part of Allied Expeditionary Force
Commanders
Notable
commanders
Bernard Paget
Bernard Montgomery
Again, infantry only, no need to equip every single man with the weapon. As infantry made up only something like 12% of the army it is probably entirely doable with just US supplies.

Subsequent history shows that in practice dedicated 'heavier' automatic weapons were retained at Section and Squad level through the cold war and beyond.

It is only recently that we see lighter automatic weapons displace them.

A loaded Bren = 11.5 KGs - the reason for its adoption was to provide a mobile Machine gun that could maintain a relatively high rate of fire compared to the Lewis gun which while only slightly heavier was far far more difficult to reload, move and maintain and did not have a QC barrel.

The 1938+ British Section was effectively 9 Riflemen supporting a Bren gunner - their entire organization and equipment (chest pouches etc) was dedicated to it

I note that the NATO squad or Section throughout most of the cold war retained the 'heavy' GPMG (FN MAG/M60/MG3) and in some cases a second LMG (Royal Marines retained the L4 Bren gun at Section level) and later on we see the twin fire team setup with 1 FN Minimi in each fireteam and they are about 8 or slightly more KGs loaded.

While MG42s were initially removed from German sections armed with STG44s my understanding is that they soon made a reappearance - it was the same story with the US Army introducing the M1919A5 down to Platoon and section level and post war attempting to provide Squad level firepower with the M14 and heavy barreled versions of that weapon (M15?) and the Canadians using the C2 heavy barreled C1 (FN FAL) - in both cases ultimately the GPMG was adopted at Squad / section level.

So maybe a second weapon is not required here if the No4s are replaced as the M1 Carbine would provided greater sustained firepower and more ammunition for both the Carbine and the Bren.
Most of those armies didn't fight in major conflicts during the Cold War. In Korea they were largely forced to make do with WW2 surplus due to funding cuts, while in Vietnam things changed heavily with the introduction of the M16 and that experience led to the SAW program because the GPMG was decided to be too much for a squad to lug around, which meant the GPMG became a platoon weapon like the Bren was in Wigram's platoon organization.

I'm not as familiar with the British organization after Korea, so can't comment on that structure other than to note that they were fighting insurgencies rather than wars against even a near peer opponent.

As to the German org they only kept MG42s in the squad if they didn't have enough StGs, which was the situation for the vast majority of their military; it was meant to be kept as a platoon weapon if they could actually ever get to TOE, which they weren't given their production situation in 1944-45 when the StG was formally adopted. Post-war they reverted back to their mid-war organization, just now with a 'modern' battle rifle in 7.62 NATO; combat experience (their first since WW2) in Afghanistan has caused them to drop the MG3 and move the GPMG back to the Platoon or as a vehicle weapon, while they have the MG4 for squad use (basically an HK label SAW).
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
I'm actually partial to the .351 Long even with the rim. The simply blowback option isn't great for that sort of cartridge due to the recoil from the heavy bolt, but the gas tappet system of the M1 Carbine would probably work just fine with such a cartridge. With a spitzer 7.62 with a steel core and a flat base the .351 WSL cartridge would be pretty good...with a .22 bullet it would be pretty close to ideal for WW2, as it would be basically the .221 Fireball.

Of course making their own ammo from scratch and having to buy a license for it from Winchester would probably make it a nonstarter and having another non-standard cartridge would probably be cost prohibitive even if they could still use the 7.62 caliber.

The MARS cartridges are out, as only 100 of the pistols were ever made and ceased production in 1907, so there wasn't any existing production of the ammo to start production on. As mentioned earlier they'd probably have to base off something using the 9mm base width and see how much existing machinery could lengthen the case.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
The situation immediately after 1940 and in 1942 are quite different from a production standpoint. What the UK did out of desperation in 1940-41 isn't indicative of production ability by 1942, either in the US or UK; as it was the UK got quite a few of them and could have asked for more from the US and set up their own production line to supplement what they get from the US.

I'm not talking about reequipping the entire British military globally with the M1 Carbine, just those divisions headed to Normandy in 1944 due to production constraints.

That's not how mass armies have been equipped, generally; the decision in 1914 to stay with the SMLE, rather than the Pattern 1913 is illustrative. The same for the Germans with 98K, MP40s, and Stg.44s.

More recently, the efforts of the US to requip with the M-16 during Vietnam is another example.
 

Deleted member 1487

That's not how mass armies have been equipped, generally; the decision in 1914 to stay with the SMLE, rather than the Pattern 1913 is illustrative. The same for the Germans with 98K, MP40s, and Stg.44s.

More recently, the efforts of the US to requip with the M-16 during Vietnam is another example.
Not sure what point you're trying to make. The Germans had a hodgepodge of infantry weapons and phased in the StG44 to different units at different times.
The situation of the British in 1914 isn't really relevant to WW2 either.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
Not sure what point you're trying to make. The Germans had a hodgepodge of infantry weapons and phased in the StG44 to different units at different times.
The situation of the British in 1914 isn't really relevant to WW2 either.

The lessons of history?

That the perfect is the enemy of the good?

Procurement, logistics, supply chains, and training for an army doesn't turn on a dime.
 

Deleted member 1487

The lessons of history?

That the perfect is the enemy of the good?

Procurement, logistics, supply chains, and training for an army doesn't turn on a dime.
Except in this case it wouldn't? Production was already set up, M1 Carbines were already issued to British troops IOTL, and the US was already shipping in huge quantities of the weapons and ammo to Britain for use of their own troops in Normandy. With a year or more to prepare it wouldn't be at all hard to equip 200k infantry with the weapon, as the US was already producing millions of the rifles by 1943. The supply chains were already set up, as were the logistics moving the weapons an ammo through Britain to France. In fact they were already dropping them to the French resistance in the lead up to Overlord.
 
The MARS cartridges are out, as only 100 of the pistols were ever made and ceased production in 1907, so there wasn't any existing production of the ammo to start production on.

I disagree, ready availability of existing ammo isn't the point when creating a brand new weapon category (or, at least this is the case assuming my scenario of "oops, we're not getting lendlease .30 ball from America for this weapon" happens, not to mention your point about Winchester's commercial calibres needing to be licenced).

The Mars pistol/cartridges were among the most famous failed prototypes, those of us who read Ian Hogg's reference books before wikipedia was a thing all knew about Mars; indeed, wikipedia's 8.5mm page actually cites a US gun industry book published in 1943 for its info! (Also, there's the fact that Mars' failure did lead to Webley's longterm autoloader manufacturing success.)

For UK arms production during WWII, 8.5mm is about as 'obscure' a round as the ancient .30 Remington case in recent years was when used as the basis for the 6.8mm SPC.

Anyway, what we're talking about is creating a new round in an ammo category--i.e., 900/950 ft lbs from an 18/19 inch barrel, using a 7.5 to 9 mm calibre--that consists of precisely 1 well known cartridge at this point in history, two if we beef up the .35 WSL.

Also, I've run numbers through these case capacity and powley calculators, http://kwk.us/cases.html http://kwk.us/powley.html , and found that if you replicate 8.5mm using a .318 Westley Richards or .30-06 case necked down to Mars' 26mm length, loading a 140 grain .331 bullet like the original pistol round, to achieve power comensurate to .30 carbine ball, you can keep it at normal autopistol levels (that is, less than .30 carbine, .351 WSL, or my proposed .35 WSL +P, all of which would be about 38,000 psi.) (Admittedly the kwk powley calculator is predicated on use of modern propellant powders, but I still was able to come up with about 38,000 psi for an original case 8.5mm Mars load going 15,500 fps out of a 9.5 inch barrel, which sounds historically correct for the Edwardian cartridge. Out of an 18 inch barrel it bounces up to 1700 fps for the same pressure.)
As mentioned earlier they'd probably have to base off someting using the 9mm base width and see how much existing machinery could lengthen the case.

A 8.5mm Mars based on a .318 or .30-06 rimsize is roughly as wide as the base of a .45 ACP.

You can try working off 9mm Mauser Export, but there is some doubt as to whether muzzle energy levels claimed for the Danuvia and Sig heavy SMGs chambered in it were ever achieved, https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/9x25-mauser-ballistics-and-some-other-questions/13140/6

But if you do increase 9mm ME to the length of the M1 .30 carbine case, maybe longer, then you have a fourth potential round in this category to choose from.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately, I think this is a military reform that only happens in the event of that hypothetical long war occurring after a Soviet collapse in '42/'43, plus the success of the Manhattan Project being knocked back a year or three.

At that point, increasing infantry effectiveness becomes a much bigger thing for Whitehall than it ever was IOTL.
The simply blowback option isn't great for that sort of cartridge due to the recoil from the heavy bolt, but the gas tappet system of the M1 Carbine would probably work just fine with such a cartridge.

At the end of the day, it's actually the overall weight of an M1 carbine-equivalent Thompson or Owen that's a problem; MacCollum states in his video about the .30 carbine Tommy Gun that it's 10 to 12 pounds (loaded and unloaded? I'm not sure). I can't imagine it or a comparable Owen would be recoil pigs. Far from it.

But. Twice the weight of the American closed, locked bolt carbine.

Yet, when considering the possibility of select fire, I think we're looking at a question of accuracy; increased accuracy of a heavy carbine versus a light one.

The French were considering a roller delayed blowback assault rifle in .30 carbine after the war, and it weighed in at 9.5 pounds.

619
 
That's not how mass armies have been equipped, generally; the decision in 1914 to stay with the SMLE, rather than the Pattern 1913 is illustrative. The same for the Germans with 98K, MP40s, and Stg.44s.

More recently, the efforts of the US to requip with the M-16 during Vietnam is another example.
The German and Soviets were trying to change to semiautomatic rifles, but the invasion stopped that, and the German examples were terrible, and then bombings.
So not really the same thing with US and then Canadian and UK built examples for the M1 Carbine
 
Just neck the .30 carbine case down to 7mm and give it a spitzer bullet.
Since the British were in a rush, just use the 32 WSL pretty much as it was, and not worry about going down to 7.62, UKwas doing 8mm barrels already for the BESA, so that size is not unknown to them.

There was a difference in pressure, the WSL was 28,000, and M1 Carbine at 38,000, so always can make a '32 WSL+P' to get similar energy from its 165 grain bullet.
 
At the end of the day, it's actually the overall weight of an M1 carbine-equivalent Thompson or Owen that's a problem; MacCollum states in his video about the .30 carbine Tommy Gun that it's 10 to 12 pounds (loaded and unloaded? I'm not sure). I can't imagine it or a comparable Owen would be recoil pigs. Far from it.
45 Thompson, even while that heavy, you really got to bear down on it to keep on target. The stock angle doesn't help. It like wrestling a snake to keep on target for a full magazine.
M2? Easy peasy for a mag dump
 

Deleted member 1487

Since the British were in a rush, just use the 32 WSL pretty much as it was, and not worry about going down to 7.62, UKwas doing 8mm barrels already for the BESA, so that size is not unknown to them.

There was a difference in pressure, the WSL was 28,000, and M1 Carbine at 38,000, so always can make a '32 WSL+P' to get similar energy from its 165 grain bullet.
At that point why not just use the 9x25mm or a lengthened version up to 30mm? Part of the problem with using a heavier, slower bullet is the lack of damage it tends to do as well as worse ballistics and recoil. Granted it would likely have better ballistics than a 125 grain 9mm bullet at 100m or so due to the substantially better sectional density, which would be the reason to use a 7.62 spitzer bullet with a lengthened 9mm case...which apparently HK did experiment with in the 1960s before the .300 AAC Blackout. So I guess we are talking about ways to create a .300 AAC Blackout for service in 1944:
http://www.municion.org/7mm/7_62x34_5HK.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.300_AAC_Blackout
300-AAC-125gr.jpg
 
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.

O(^^^)

There's a hot war on, Simon! Now is not the time to try something "different" that will gum up the training cycles and the logistics chains.

Lot of truth (^^^) in that observation. The Americans got away with it, because they laid back and watched for 2 and 1/2 years. Britain in the middle of a shooting war needs stuff and trained men today as in right now. Why build 2 pounders in 1941 and 1942 when the 6 pounder is right there? Same logic for why Shermans were going ashore in France 1944 instead of M27s. Good enough now is better and more desperately needed. than perfect future never.
 
Last edited:

SwampTiger

Banned
I agree with much of the discussion. The problem is timing. The British would have snapped up the M1 Carbine in 1940. By 1942, it had an established logistical and training program. The .32 WSL was a mistake. It should have been .35 or .351 WSL based from the start with a 5.5 pound requirement.

Someone should have remembered this gun before designing the .30 M1 cartridge. https://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/139141156104/the-winchester-burton-machine-rifle-the
 
Top