British Army adopts M1 Carbine as primary rifle for Normandy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
British infantry all re equipped with a US M1 Carbine. Who is going to pay for it? Britain had little in the way of dollars by then and Lend Lease means the British Army has it's rifles taken away given back to the USA by the end of 1945. Just like all those Shermans, and US aeroplanes etc. It all had to be given back or paid for in dollars.

The MaxiSten is entirely British so remains in service just like Cromwells and Comets, Tempests and Lancasters. It requires no tool room machining like an M1 and uses existing resources. Ammunition production switches fast once when you have the factories already in place. They quickly put all sorts of ammunition into production for things like Italian rifles with no problem. The 9x25 (or 7.62x25) is a known item not some new design. Staying with the blowback system is intrinsic to the cheap (resources and cost) fast production which is the whole point of the Sten itself. Rifle factories have the machines and staff ideal for swapping to extra Bren or Besal production and none of this impacts upon scarce shipping. Whatever new you bring from the USA means something else is not shipped.

The Maxisten fills exactly the same function as the M1 Carbine in this post. It gives automatic or semi automatic fire for the 0-200 yard distance to replace the inevitably cumbersome bolt action rifle. It does so in a different way of course.

The M1 entered production after the OTL Sten and took time to satisfy US needs, M1911 pistols and 1903 Springfields were still being seen in second line troop hands in 1944 in the US Army. The OTL Sten was getting into troops hands in 1941. By th MkIII the man hours to make one had got down to just 5 hours and subcontracted outside arms factories. I have no man hours figures for the M1 but I have to assume it was many more and needed production in a proper arms factory which could be doing other things.

The M1 has much to commend it but in the middle of the war the MaxiSten is a better strategic choice for the British Army. It should have been made in India too for the Burma front. India had all that was needed to do so.

BTW I notice that the Chinese converted some of their Stens to 7.62x25 Tokarev.
 
O(^^^)



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 M-37s. Good enough now is better and more desperately needed. than perfect future never.
Shermans was a bad call, as there were a number of companies thst stopped making Shermans mid war, that could have continued while other plants retooled for whatever flavor of T-2* was Standardized for production.

And as far as the 2pdr/6pdr conundrum, they should have used the 25pdr. Supercharge with Shot was adequate for any German Tank save the Tiger thru 1942.
And it fired a great HE round too
 
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

I never was abke to find how much the decent finished early MkI or MkI* cost in late 1940.
 

Deleted member 1487

British infantry all re equipped with a US M1 Carbine. Who is going to pay for it? Britain had little in the way of dollars by then and Lend Lease means the British Army has it's rifles taken away given back to the USA by the end of 1945. Just like all those Shermans, and US aeroplanes etc. It all had to be given back or paid for in dollars.
Just the ones for Normandy, which is something like 200k men. It would be via LL where they got heaps of small arms and only paid 10% of the cost, with the rest of the equipment written off and kept by Britain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Repayment

The MaxiSten is entirely British so remains in service just like Cromwells and Comets, Tempests and Lancasters. It requires no tool room machining like an M1 and uses existing resources. Ammunition production switches fast once when you have the factories already in place. They quickly put all sorts of ammunition into production for things like Italian rifles with no problem. The 9x25 (or 7.62x25) is a known item not some new design. Staying with the blowback system is intrinsic to the cheap (resources and cost) fast production which is the whole point of the Sten itself. Rifle factories have the machines and staff ideal for swapping to extra Bren or Besal production and none of this impacts upon scarce shipping. Whatever new you bring from the USA means something else is not shipped.

The Maxisten fills exactly the same function as the M1 Carbine in this post. It gives automatic or semi automatic fire for the 0-200 yard distance to replace the inevitably cumbersome bolt action rifle. It does so in a different way of course.

The M1 entered production after the OTL Sten and took time to satisfy US needs, M1911 pistols and 1903 Springfields were still being seen in second line troop hands in 1944 in the US Army. The OTL Sten was getting into troops hands in 1941. By th MkIII the man hours to make one had got down to just 5 hours and subcontracted outside arms factories. I have no man hours figures for the M1 but I have to assume it was many more and needed production in a proper arms factory which could be doing other things.

The M1 has much to commend it but in the middle of the war the MaxiSten is a better strategic choice for the British Army. It should have been made in India too for the Burma front. India had all that was needed to do so.

BTW I notice that the Chinese converted some of their Stens to 7.62x25 Tokarev.
Technically American sourced M1 Carbines would require no machine tooling at all, just buying the units and ammo at a 90% discount in the end.
Shipping wasn't scarce by 1943 either and if you're making weapons you're still importing the raw materials for it, being Britain.
Sten and a light rifle are different things. Dirty and cheap is fine for a panic weapon like the Sten, but if you want something accurate beyond 50m you need to pay in production quality and cost. Besides the gas tappet system of the M1 Carbine wasn't particularly hard to manufacture; it was about half the price of a Garand. Meanwhile the Danuvia rifle I posted before was twice the cost of the Sten, but half the cost of the M1 Carbine. I just mentioned the Carbine because it could be produced by the US en masse, while LL ensured it would be costless to Britain during the war, while post-war it would get a 90% discount, making it cheaper than the Sten. Not only that, but it would cost Britain no labor or raw materials, meaning even the shipping weight would make it more space/weight effect for the existing shipping, as it was a finished unit rather than raw materials to be honed down into a weapon. That was a big reason that the Brits liked to import finished weapons if possible from the US rather than the raw materials especially during the crisis period before 1943.

A simple blowback maxisten is nothing more than the SIG MKMS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_MKMO
A 4.25kg weapon that was much more expensive than the Sten because of necessary quality to make them accurate at ranges over 100m and of course heavier recoil necessitating a heavier weapon. I'd question the accuracy in automatic at that range though given the recoil even with the heavier weight of the weapon.
 
Shermans was a bad call, as there were a number of companies thst stopped making Shermans mid war, that could have continued while other plants retooled for whatever flavor of T-2* was Standardized for production.

We could debate it. I used to think that maybe the M27 should have been rushed into service, but I've become wiser with more research. For the system of systems that was the Wallies in France 1944, the Sherman was good enough.


And as far as the 2pdr/6pdr conundrum, they should have used the 25pdr. Supercharge with Shot was adequate for any German Tank save the Tiger thru 1942.
And it fired a great HE round too

If the lessons had been learned in 1928 (as they should have been with the Experimental Armoured Brigade.) doubtless I would agree. But it is 1941/1942 and the fight is on, and you just can't call; "Time out, Rommel! We have to re-equip with 25 pounder armed tanks to give you a proper thrashing!"

.eJwFwVEOgyAMANC7cACgLS3tLmOIGnRRMcK-lt19733d5zncy21j3P0VwrL3uT2L76M9pa6-tlaPtdx793M7QxmjzNu5XqMHVGY1JgIhQMkqAQ1UzJAzA6BGSQFYUSjBBBE4IUaLQpyT5CllJEITMo6QEivYdPn3Xd3vD-mbKlk.ySFZ4uHkmDBsC_4JfoaqumvVC8E


:p
 
Last edited:
Shermans was a bad call, as there were a number of companies thst stopped making Shermans mid war, that could have continued while other plants retooled for whatever flavor of T-2* was Standardized for production.

And as far as the 2pdr/6pdr conundrum, they should have used the 25pdr. Supercharge with Shot was adequate for any German Tank save the Tiger thru 1942.
And it fired a great HE round too

Sherman was the right tank. I'm with Nicolas Moran on the whole 'tank destroyer' myth and the idea that the T26 would have won the war quicker

As for 25 pounder versus a 2 or 6 pounder....

2 pounder 815 KGs / ?m tall / ROF practical 22 RPM

6 pounder 1140 KGs / 1.28m tall / ROF practical 16 RPM

25 pounder 1633 KGs / 1.6m tall / ROF maximum 6-8 RPM

In 1940-42 Britain was still trying to arm its 32 Division force as well as the commonwealth forces with the 25 pounder for their Artillery Rgts

That's for a fully leaded first team division 72 guns each!

Thats a lot of guns
 
As for 25 pounder versus a 2 or 6 pounder....

2 pounder 815 KGs / ?m tall / ROF practical 22 RPM

6 pounder 1140 KGs / 1.28m tall / ROF practical 16 RPM

25 pounder 1633 KGs / 1.6m tall / ROF maximum 6-8 RPM

And how many times did a 2pdr firing solid shot take to knock out a 50mm PaK38 in the Desert?
25 pdr does it in one nearby hit from HE. Same for bouncing shot off from and Mk IV 'Special'. 25pdrs did well firingnshit in the Desert.

25 pdr carriage was fancier than required. The important thing to look at, was the weight of tube and breech. 1000 pounds. Just too heavy for the nonsense of 'shoulder stabilizer' via the Gunner when on the move. Use geared elevation, like everyone else. Free Elevation did not help with British Tankers.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
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 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

You'd be surprised how hard it is to replace a piece of equipment, even in an emergency, and with all the program-level management that comes along with that...

In wartime, it is very difficult, for the obvious reason, someone is actively trying to kill you.
 
And how many times did a 2pdr firing solid shot take to knock out a 50mm PaK38 in the Desert?
25 pdr does it in one nearby hit from HE. Same for bouncing shot off from and Mk IV 'Special'. 25pdrs did well firingnshit in the Desert.

25 pdr carriage was fancier than required. The important thing to look at, was the weight of tube and breech. 1000 pounds. Just too heavy for the nonsense of 'shoulder stabilizer' via the Gunner when on the move. Use geared elevation, like everyone else. Free Elevation did not help with British Tankers.

Thats all very well and good - and I do not disagree that it made for a pretty good AT weapon (as an aside it did the job breaking up armoured attacks time and time again in its principle role as an Artillery
piece) but the weapon is harder to make - uses up more resources is larger, harder to move etc and unless you robbing the field regiments of their artillery to press them into AT gun units then production cannot supply them until 1942 plus when the 17 pounder turns up
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
O(^^^)



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.

Thanks. The brutal reality is when the other side is trying to kill you on a daily basis, you need something to shoot back with today, not a week from now. Likewise, once that "good enough" stuff has helped you turn the tide and you have the initiative, slowing down to turn in all the old stuff and draw new stuff is giving the other side the opportunity to take the initiative away. The simple fact the SMLE wasn't really replaced in the British Army until the FAL came along, six decades or more after the old rifle went into service, makes it clear that what makes sense in the abstract has a tendency to not be something that can be delivered in reality.

It's not a bad idea (using a "small" caliber S/A weapon as a proto-assault rifle), but the simple reality is what the British had in place (SMLE, Bren, and Sten) was good enough for their purposes.
 
I consider the M1 carbine to be the best small arm of the war.
Better than an STG 44?

As for 25 pounder versus a 2 or 6 pounder....

2 pounder 815 KGs / ?m tall / ROF practical 22 RPM 792 m/s (2,600 ft/s)

6 pounder 1140 KGs / 1.28m tall / ROF practical 16 RPM 853 m/s (2,800 ft/s) to later APDS 1,219 m/s (4,000 ft/s)

25 pounder 1633 KGs / 1.6m tall / ROF maximum 6-8 RPM 198 to 532 m/s (650 to 1,750 ft/s)
And how many times did a 2pdr firing solid shot take to knock out a 50mm PaK38 in the Desert?
25 pdr does it in one nearby hit from HE.
The added MV will make actually hitting a moving target rather easier at anything over point blank range. Not to mention most firing will not be first round hits so a faster loading gun will get the range faster as well....
 
Last edited:
The added MV will make actually hitting a moving target rather easier at anything over point blank range. Not to mention most firing will not be first round hits so a faster loading gun will get the range faster as well....

Hits that don't penetrate really aren't worth firing, are they?

Hoping for a Golden BB at 22 rpm is a lot of faith
 
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 British Army still had much the same logistical issues they had in 1914 just much more complicated, it would have been a pain to set up production of M1 carbines in the UK or Commonwealth as they would have used production methods not entirely in line with US practice requiring some additional development and cost. Even if they just got them from the US on lend-lease it would have taken up additional capacity on the Atlantic routes that could have been used for other more important materials. The British would also have been introducing a fourth major cartridge into their small arms mix of 9mm parabellum for the Sten, .303 for the Bren, Vickers Mk1 and Enfield No.4 and .38 pistol and then adding .30 Carbine, there were also (relatively) smaller quantities of other cartridges used by other troops like tank crews such as 7.92mm, 15mm, .30 and .50 cal and there were also a fair few Thompson M1 in .45 . Every additional calibre added to the British forces in Normandy would be an additional strain on a logistical system groaning under the strain of keeping the troops equipped and fed.

The British also didn't have a tactical doctrine to take advantage of widespread use of a semi-auto rifle but they had one for troops with a LMG and bolt action rifles.
 
Better than an STG 44?

The STG was a good gun but the M1 Carbine was almost half its weight and at all practicable ranges in WW2 its round was good enough.

Hits that don't penetrate really aren't worth firing, are they?

Hoping for a Golden BB at 22 rpm is a lot of faith

Depends on what its shooting at.

By the time the PzIII J with the increased armour and the Up armoured PzIVs start showing up (and the PzIV never in great numbers) the 2 pounder is already replaced in AT Regiments by the 6 pounder

Certainly the Italian tanks (M11 and M13 etc) are all vulnerable to the weapon

And until those better tanks start showing up the 2 Pounder is pretty much effective verses all AFVs
 
And until those better tanks start showing up the 2 Pounder is pretty much effective verses all AFVs
But the 2pdr had the problem of shot shattering on impact on face hardened plate before the later Marks showed up, when capped rounds were in service in 1942 that solved the problem, by time the 2pdr was really obsolete.

But we have drifted from M1 Carbines replacing Panic STENs in 1942 and onwards.
 

Deleted member 1487

The British Army still had much the same logistical issues they had in 1914 just much more complicated, it would have been a pain to set up production of M1 carbines in the UK or Commonwealth as they would have used production methods not entirely in line with US practice requiring some additional development and cost. Even if they just got them from the US on lend-lease it would have taken up additional capacity on the Atlantic routes that could have been used for other more important materials. The British would also have been introducing a fourth major cartridge into their small arms mix of 9mm parabellum for the Sten, .303 for the Bren, Vickers Mk1 and Enfield No.4 and .38 pistol and then adding .30 Carbine, there were also (relatively) smaller quantities of other cartridges used by other troops like tank crews such as 7.92mm, 15mm, .30 and .50 cal and there were also a fair few Thompson M1 in .45 . Every additional calibre added to the British forces in Normandy would be an additional strain on a logistical system groaning under the strain of keeping the troops equipped and fed.

The British also didn't have a tactical doctrine to take advantage of widespread use of a semi-auto rifle but they had one for troops with a LMG and bolt action rifles.
I'm not suggesting they do much production on their own, just source it from the US. What in 1943-44 would some 200k additional M1 Carbines plus ammo have cost them? In fact they could not drop the M1s they dropped to the French resistance IOTL and give them Stens instead. It would also replace the Sten in Normandy forces, so remove the 9mm from the supply lines. Also this POD presupposes that doctrine changes to accommodate the Carbine, because why adopt it without some doctrinal need being developed? What 15mm tank guns did the British have? They also didn't use the .30 cal AFAIK, rather BESAs in 8mm or Vickers in .303. .50 cal yes, but those were rare. As it was the British were already using the .30 Carbine ammo and M1 Carbine, it would just take on a greater role in this POD.
 
I'm not suggesting they do much production on their own, just source it from the US. What in 1943-44 would some 200k additional M1 Carbines plus ammo have cost them? In fact they could not drop the M1s they dropped to the French resistance IOTL and give them Stens instead. It would also replace the Sten in Normandy forces, so remove the 9mm from the supply lines. Also this POD presupposes that doctrine changes to accommodate the Carbine, because why adopt it without some doctrinal need being developed? What 15mm tank guns did the British have? They also didn't use the .30 cal AFAIK, rather BESAs in 8mm or Vickers in .303. .50 cal yes, but those were rare. As it was the British were already using the .30 Carbine ammo and M1 Carbine, it would just take on a greater role in this POD.

The British acquired a lot of M1919's in .30cal as AFV armament on Lend Lease vehicles many of the guns remained in British Service until the late 1960's but weren't finally declared obsolete until the early 1990's. The UK also manufactured 15mm BESA machine guns and used them on a range of light armour including the Humber Armoured Car.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Armoured_Car
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besa_machine_gun#15mm_Besa_machine_gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield#Commonwealth

So they need 200,000 but that likely means they need another 50-100,000 for training and attrition spares, they also need a lot of spare-parts, ammo and more importantly a massive number of magazines all of which just go to complicate a delicate logistical situation. The M1 carbine has developed a reputation for unreliability post-war, however many veterans claim that if the mags are swapped for new ones periodically this increased reliability.
 
Shermans was a bad call, as there were a number of companies thst stopped making Shermans mid war, that could have continued while other plants retooled for whatever flavor of T-2* was Standardized for production.

And as far as the 2pdr/6pdr conundrum, they should have used the 25pdr. Supercharge with Shot was adequate for any German Tank save the Tiger thru 1942.
And it fired a great HE round too

How many 25 pounder shells can you fit in a tank turret compared with 2/6 pdr shells? What’s the accuracy like in direct fire on the move?
 

Deleted member 94680

Just the ones for Normandy, which is something like 200k men. It would be via LL where they got heaps of small arms and only paid 10% of the cost, with the rest of the equipment written off and kept by Britain

That’s madness. Equipping the most vital component of your entire armed forces with a completely different weapon to the rest of your Army could lead to all kinds of difficulties.

What happens if D-Day is a failure and casualties are disastrous? Do you send in a second wave equipped with different weapons (and ammunition) to try and link up with the survivors?
What if it’s far more successful than planned for and the German front collapses? Do you throw in extra exploitation troops equipped differently?
What if the front stabilises to the point of attritional warfare? How long does British supply of American ammunition last?

What happens past D-Day when these M1 troops advance into Europe and non-M1 troops come up alongside them? What if paradrops of ammunition are required?
 
So they need 200,000 but that likely means they need another 50-100,000 for training and attrition spares, they also need a lot of spare-parts, ammo and more importantly a massive number of magazines all of which just go to complicate a delicate logistical situation. The M1 carbine has developed a reputation for unreliability post-war, however many veterans claim that if the mags are swapped for new ones periodically this increased reliability.

recall these are to be replacing STEN MkIIs, not known for great reliability.
 
Top