British Army adopts M1 Carbine as primary rifle for Normandy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

So in short you're asking that the British, in the middle of war, completely rearm their invasion force with a weapon that is advertised as a support crew weapon, with ammo that they themselves are not producing, with rifles that cost twice the amount of their main service rifles and buckets more than the SMG they themselves are producing and planning on improving and they'll have to pay for it themselves out of pocket.

Good luck getting the procurement office to greenlight that. At this point the carbine is an untested curiosity that the Americans are procuring primarily for their support troops as a lighter and cheaper (but still expensive) alternative to the VERY expensive M1 Garand. When the US started issuing them in mid-42 to rifle companies the recipients were weapons platoon troops and hq units, the rifle platoons got 1 each (3 in total) out of a total of 28 delivered to the platoon.

So why should the British go: Yeah, "thats our new main line service rifle right there" when initially the purpose of the thing isn't frontline service in rifle companies? And No the SAS pinching SOE kit for special purpose missions is not gonna convince anyone to to replace the role of the SMG among their their riflemen with a weapon the US themselves are not envisioning replacing the SMG but instead are making an entirely new SMG that is suspiciously similar in form and simplicity to the ones used by Britain, Germany and the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
Poor penetration, not even getting through Chinese padded uniforms in Korea!
However they are not fighting padded troops in the Korean winter, but Western Europe in the summer/fall.
(I would also suggest M2s or the original concept of M1s as select fire. I've shot an M2, its very controllable.)

If we were butterflying production and its 1941 then yes I would proffer its a good idea for the reasons given. Combined with Bren guns and advanced radio communications, this is a shorter range concept of units used by Western powers (and Frankly the Soviets) through to the 1970s.

*Same concept as the German formation in 1943/1944 and after US and Western formations.
*.303 was going the way of the DoDo. Absent developing their own interim cartridge this is a good intermediate option.
*British formations would be on a substantially higher footing than their German counterparts. They have more than German levels of fire at the platoon level, but access to Wallied levels of air and artillery fire support.

EDIT: Even if the British keep the .303 SMLE, I don't see why they didn't go to the M1 for noncombat infantry arms just as the Americans did. Drop all the SMGs (keep for British Isles where logistics ot needed) and Webleys for pistols. They could have simplified and shared logistics.

Note: The US was guilty of this too. They should have dropped the SMGs once the M1s started being produced. Retool those lines for more M1s...
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

So in short you're asking that the British, in the middle of war, completely rearm their invasion force with a weapon that is advertised as a support crew weapon, with ammo that they themselves are not producing, with rifles that cost twice the amount of their main service rifles and buckets more than the SMG they themselves are producing and planning on improving and they'll have to pay for it themselves out of pocket.
In the course of a year, yes, the infantry component, about 12% of the invasion force, would be equipped with the carbine per Operations Research recommendations (IOTL they recommended dropping the SMLE for the Sten in 1943). The M1 Carbine cost twice that of the SMLE? X to doubt.
By sourcing from the US via L-L it actually costs them nothing during the war and 10% of the sticker cost post-war when the US wrote down the value of L-L and didn't even get the equipment back. So your entire criticism is basically without a basis in reality.

Good luck getting the procurement office to greenlight that. At this point the carbine is an untested curiosity that the Americans are procuring primarily for their support troops as a lighter and cheaper (but still expensive) alternative to the VERY expensive M1 Garand. When the US started issuing them in mid-42 to rifle companies the recipients were weapons platoon troops and hq units, the rifle platoons got 1 each (3 in total) out of a total of 28 delivered to the platoon.
Yes, IOTL they did not when OPOR suggested reequipping with the Sten instead of SMLE. The POD is that they listen to operations research and adopt a weapon with better performance than the Sten with all the benefits of a light, easy to use weapon with effective range within what actual combat experience proved was the normal combat ranges in WW2. It wasn't an untried weapon by 1943 either.

So why should the British go: Yeah, "thats our new main line service rifle right there" when initially the purpose of the thing isn't frontline service in rifle companies? And No the SAS pinching SOE kit for special purpose missions is not gonna convince anyone to to replace the role of the SMG among their their riflemen with a weapon the US themselves are not envisioning replacing the SMG but instead are making an entirely new SMG that is suspiciously similar in form and simplicity to the ones used by Britain, Germany and the Soviets.
Doesn't matter what the US doctrinal use of the weapon was, they are using the results of their own combat experience and operations research to use the best weapon in production to meet the actual needs of the infantry. This entire POD is based on recommendations that were made IOTL by operations research, just using the M1 Carbine instead of the Sten.
 
Plus 7.92mm version of the Besa for a while too.

Logistically it would be an issue, but hardly an insurmountable one, to keep another weapon in the field. It's what the Royal Logistics Corps did. The biggest bottleneck would have been building up a large stock of ammunition to keep those weapons in action. By WWII the .303 had been the standard British rifle calibre for 40+ years and it is the round that was in the depots. The tooling for it was in place (not just in the UK but across the Commonwealth and the ammunition then shipped to the UK) and there were literally hundreds of millions of rounds made, particularly once war actually started and production had been ramped up. To bring in another round for which there were not large reserves of ammunition to hand would have been the issue. The M1 didn't appear until 1942 I think, so couldn't have been even considered until then, so war production of .303 would have been in full swing already and switching out to another round for the front line troops, whilst still keeping the large number of SMLE's issued to 'non tooth' units supplied would have been a strange idea, something to do with not changing horses mid race.

Do you also swap out the Bren for something else or at least rechamber it? With an existing platoon, drop them a couple of cases of .303 and they can reload SMLE and Bren magazines. Change to an M1 and you need to drop off cases of both calibres.
Was normal for 303 ammo to be dropped off in boxes with preloaded strippers for the Rifle and crates of preloaded Magazines for the LMG, not boxes of loose cartridges.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
Millions of carbine rounds means a direct reduction of 9mm and 303 rounds that are being shipped to the Front

Logistically, and in terms of training/re-training troops and units that have been centered on the SMLE and an LMG (Lewis in WW I, Bren in WW 2) for decades, it's a headache for no obvious tactical or operational reason.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Logistically, and in terms of training/re-training troops and units that have been centered on the SMLE and an LMG (Lewis in WW I, Bren in WW 2) foe decades, it's a headache for no obvious tactical or operational reason.
There were plenty of obvious tactical reasons, which when added up gives operational reasons.
Bolt action rifles were less to get hits or lay down effective suppressive fire, while the amount of ammo carried was often inadequate to hold a position once taken. The magazine fed, semi-auto Carbine had more ammo and easier reloading than the SMLE, plus was easier to handle and get hits with at normal combat ranges. Ammo was lighter, so much more could be carried and would enable even a squad/section deprived of it's Bren the ability to hold a position it had taken or allow it to continue an assault for substantially longer. No one is getting rid of the Bren here, it is just being supplemented by a more effective infantry rifle. The tactical need was such that operations research recommended equipping with Sten guns instead of SMLE's:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402390903189626
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
So in short you're asking that the British, in the middle of war, completely rearm their invasion force with a weapon that is advertised as a support crew weapon, with ammo that they themselves are not producing, with rifles that cost twice the amount of their main service rifles and buckets more than the SMG they themselves are producing and planning on improving and they'll have to pay for it themselves out of pocket.

Good luck getting the procurement office to greenlight that. At this point the carbine is an untested curiosity that the Americans are procuring primarily for their support troops as a lighter and cheaper (but still expensive) alternative to the VERY expensive M1 Garand. When the US started issuing them in mid-42 to rifle companies the recipients were weapons platoon troops and hq units, the rifle platoons got 1 each (3 in total) out of a total of 28 delivered to the platoon.

So why should the British go: Yeah, "thats our new main line service rifle right there" when initially the purpose of the thing isn't frontline service in rifle companies? And No the SAS pinching SOE kit for special purpose missions is not gonna convince anyone to to replace the role of the SMG among their their riflemen with a weapon the US themselves are not envisioning replacing the SMG but instead are making an entirely new SMG that is suspiciously similar in form and simplicity to the ones used by Britain, Germany and the Soviets.

Good points. Not only is this concept both technically and operationally questionable, the logistical and training issues are very real ... and as you point out, it also overlooks the human factors and organizational cultures. It's extremely unlikely.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
There were plenty of obvious tactical reasons, which when added up gives operational reasons.
Bolt action rifles were less to get hits or lay down effective suppressive fire, while the amount of ammo carried was often inadequate to hold a position once taken. The magazine fed, semi-auto Carbine had more ammo and easier reloading than the SMLE, plus was easier to handle and get hits with at normal combat ranges. Ammo was lighter, so much more could be carried and would enable even a squad/section deprived of it's Bren the ability to hold a position it had taken or allow it to continue an assault for substantially longer. No one is getting rid of the Bren here, it is just being supplemented by a more effective infantry rifle. The tactical need was such that operations research recommended equipping with Sten guns instead of SMLE's:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402390903189626

Not going to spend $43 on a journal article; "when" was this insight regarding S/A weapons gained? The subhead on the article gives a time frame of 1943 to 1953.
 
Logistically, and in terms of training/re-training troops and units that have been centered on the SMLE and an LMG (Lewis in WW I, Bren in WW 2) foe decades, it's a headache for no obvious tactical or operational reason.
So were the UK Troops dumbfounded upon receiving Thompsons and then STENs over 1940-41?
 

Deleted member 1487

Not going to spend $43 on a journal article; "when" was this insight regarding S/A weapons gained? The subhead on the article gives a time frame of 1943 to 1953.
Use Libgen to get a copy.
Though it is unclear in the text when exactly the recommendation was made by the context of reports in the foot notes it was in early 1943 over a year before the Normandy landings. The discussion of the post-war period is how the wartime experience generated the push to adopt the EM-2 rifle and a new series of MGs based on the .280 cartridge.
 
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.
Huh? The M1 weighed 2.4kg, the Bren 10.3kg (unloaded)
 

Deleted member 1487

Huh? The M1 weighed 2.4kg, the Bren 10.3kg (unloaded)
Mixed up the kg of the M1 with the lbs of the Bren. Still >4x as heavy is quite a weight differential not even factoring in spare barrel and ammo+magazines.
 
EDIT: Even if the British keep the .303 SMLE, I don't see why they didn't go to the M1 for noncombat infantry arms just as the Americans did. Drop all the SMGs (keep for British Isles where logistics ot needed) and Webleys for pistols.
Because the STEN is dirt cheap and British factories were churning them out by the hundreds of thousand.
 
Because the STEN is dirt cheap and British factories were churning them out by the hundreds of thousand.
But even at £2, L-L Carbines are far cheaper.

And when the War is over, what are you going to use those millions of MkII Stens for? They are trash. Carbines? Keep a few for the Peacetime Army, and pay the discounted rate for those. Carbines are well made enough to serve until the replacement is ready in the '50s, and scrap the rest, per L-L terms
 
Stens are paid for in sterling, which Britain has plenty of. Carbines would be paid for in Dollars which Britain had very few of. (Bread went on ration after LL ended because there weren't enough dollars to buy all the wheat needed)
 
Make British M1 carbines?
On the flip side I'd agree with all troops going with Stens (or a slightly better Sten with proper grips and strengthened mag).
 
Stens are paid for in sterling, which Britain has plenty of. Carbines would be paid for in Dollars which Britain had very few of. (Bread went on ration after LL ended because there weren't enough dollars to buy all the wheat needed)
Why didn't the Brits buy NZ and SA Wheat? They were Sterling Zone

And even if paying Sterling, that doesn't beat near free L-L
 

Deleted member 1487

Stens are paid for in sterling, which Britain has plenty of. Carbines would be paid for in Dollars which Britain had very few of. (Bread went on ration after LL ended because there weren't enough dollars to buy all the wheat needed)
LL would pay for it, there was not need for dollars to buy via LL. Plus post-war the US gave Britain a multi-billion dollar loan at 2% interest and on top of that Marshall Plan aid. Then they wrote down LL to 10% of the value of the items they bought. Rationing post-war was a function of trying to pay off debt ASAP while paying for food for occupied Germany plus maintaining the crumbling empire without the US financing it. They had other priorities than the comfort of their civilian population.
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
Why didn't the Brits buy NZ and SA Wheat? They were Sterling Zone

And even if paying Sterling, that doesn't beat near free L-L

A quick search suggest NZ regularly imported wheat post-war. Are you thinking of Australian wheat?
 
Top