British Army adopts M1 Carbine as primary rifle for Normandy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Dave Shoup

Banned
So were the UK Troops dumbfounded upon receiving Thompsons and then STENs over 1940-41?

Troops? No.

Logisticians and ordnance specialists? Not dumbfounded, but probably reaching for the Bayer bottle. Even then, the British saw a need for light automatics, whether buying Thompsons or putting the Lanchester - which was basically an unlicensed Bergmann knockoff - and then the Sten into production.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
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.

Even 12 months is a short time to put a brand new individual weapon into service across a field army in wartime. The US experience with the M-16 is instructive.
 

Deleted member 1487

Even 12 months is a short time to put a brand new individual weapon into service across a field army in wartime. The US experience with the M-16 is instructive.
That's the thing, the M1 Carbine wasn't new to the British in 1943, they had already received it. The 'field army', that is in this case the home army that had been out of combat since 1940 for the most part, had over a year to train with it before going into combat and was in the midst of training anyway with an evolving Battle Drill training system.
The M16 was an entirely different situation, a uniquely American SNAFU with small arms. Look at how the US introduced the M1 Carbine IOTL in 1942...there weren't issues adopting it despite developing it from scratch in less than a year. The M16 problem was a bureaucratic one that is pretty unique in how it was handled.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
That's the thing, the M1 Carbine wasn't new to the British in 1943, they had already received it. The 'field army', that is in this case the home army that had been out of combat since 1940 for the most part, had over a year to train with it before going into combat and was in the midst of training anyway with an evolving Battle Drill training system.
The M16 was an entirely different situation, a uniquely American SNAFU with small arms. Look at how the US introduced the M1 Carbine IOTL in 1942...there weren't issues adopting it despite developing it from scratch in less than a year. The M16 problem was a bureaucratic one that is pretty unique in how it was handled.

The M1 was a sidearm replacement for the US Arm; your position, I thought, was the M1 should have been used as THE standard infantry individual weapon - replacing all the SMLEs, Stens, and Brens - for what became 21st Army Group, which amounted to more than 20 British, Canadian, and Polish divisions.

Okay, hope that works out for you.
 

Deleted member 1487

The M1 was a sidearm replacement for the US Arm; your position, I thought, was the M1 should have been used as THE standard infantry individual weapon - replacing all the SMLEs, Stens, and Brens - for what became 21st Army Group, which amounted to more than 20 British, Canadian, and Polish divisions.

Okay, hope that works out for you.
It was a mass issued small arm produced in the millions and used for decades after WW2. No my position wasn't that it would replace the Bren (and infantry rifle couldn't replace an MG in it's role; at most the Bren would be pushed into a weapons squad at the platoon level to make rifle squads standard on one weapon so the MG isn't holding back the rest of the squad), nor replace the weapons of any non-infantry unit except for perhaps tanker crew, as the folding stock paratrooper M1a1's would fit in tanks pretty easily and then allow for the replacement of the Sten.

Again for the 21st AG only about 12-15% of the total personnel were infantry, so out of slightly over 1 million men less than 200k would be equipped with the M1 Carbine, not factor in snipers/marksmen who would retain the SMLE or Bren gunners. Rear area personnel would retain the SMLE as needed. Pistols I'd imagine would be up to officers and other ranks to purchase and use if they want.
 

Glyndwr01

Banned
You are forgetting the biggest impedance to introduction of a new weapons system in the British Army.
.
.
.
.
The time taken by the Brigade of Guards working out the new arms drill.
 
You are forgetting the biggest impedance to introduction of a new weapons system in the British Army.
.
.
.
.
The time taken by the Brigade of Guards working out the new arms drill.
That why some say the Garand and Johnson did not have protruding magazines.
 
You are forgetting the biggest impedance to introduction of a new weapons system in the British Army.
.
.
.
.
The time taken by the Brigade of Guards working out the new arms drill.
Nah, they'd just have to dig out the drill manuals from the old Martini Henry Artillery Carbines.
 

Deleted member 1487

Didn't some of the "local" home guards across the Empire still have Martini–Enfields in .303, as late as WW II?
In India and New Zealand as a reserve arm, which I think means last ditch in the event of invasion arm.
 
Mixing a lower powered .303 into the mix is a terrible idea. It complicates logistics even further, there are going to be risks that the rounds could be mixed with normal .303 which might make a Bren or Vickers fail to cycle at the worst time possible.

Yes, if they go with lower powered .303 'PDW' they must be "use only if very desperate" for the Brens, but if you're specifically issuing ten rounds in the mag plus dedicated stripper clips to each bolt-carbineer's forward chest pouch, I don't see why it's not perfectly manageable for these poor bloody squaddies to be taught not to load them in Bren mags (just make them roundnosed bullets, for instance, identifiably not .303 Mk VII). It's not the tsar's peasant Russian army, you know. See marathog's post at 64 for how complicated the ammo supply was IOTL.

As for the Vickers? Those are either divisional assets, or else pretty specialist weapons for airborne/commandos. They're the most well trained when it comes to teams supervising their weaponry. They're not going to mistakenly load PDW ammo instead of Mk VIIIz into MMGs belts.

But if they simply chamber the bolt carbine for .30 carbine/hot .35WSL/8.5x26mm-06 wildcat/9x30mm, whichever is being chambered in the autocarbine, then this is all a moot point, innit.

Once again I must reiterate: a British Empire that undergoes small arms reform because it's fighting a tougher war into the late forties is doing so from a pretty good warfooting vis-a-vis materiel, because it would have chucked in the towel if it wasn't in a position to continue doing well supplied offensives, it's those other people who have problems in reliably bringing stuff to bear.

Even then, ignoring my hypothetical timeframe, I have a hard time understanding why people think the doctrinal problem preventing a smallarms reform in OTL's over-by-'45 war is anything other than that, doctrinal. Administrative. Political.

I don't see the 'can't actually be physically done in this here industrial war' limitation.
 
Yes, if they go with lower powered .303 'PDW' they must be "use only if very desperate" for the Brens, but if you're specifically issuing ten rounds in the mag plus dedicated stripper clips to each bolt-carbineer's forward chest pouch, I don't see why it's not perfectly manageable for these poor bloody squaddies to be taught not to load them in Bren mags (just make them roundnosed bullets, for instance, identifiably not .303 Mk VII). It's not the tsar's peasant Russian army, you know. See marathog's post at 64 for how complicated the ammo supply was IOTL.

As for the Vickers? Those are either divisional assets, or else pretty specialist weapons for airborne/commandos. They're the most well trained when it comes to teams supervising their weaponry. They're not going to mistakenly load PDW ammo instead of Mk VIIIz into MMGs belts.

But if they simply chamber the bolt carbine for .30 carbine/hot .35WSL/8.5x26mm-06 wildcat/9x30mm, whichever is being chambered in the autocarbine, then this is all a moot point, innit.

Once again I must reiterate: a British Empire that undergoes small arms reform because it's fighting a tougher war into the late forties is doing so from a pretty good warfooting vis-a-vis materiel, because it would have chucked in the towel if it wasn't in a position to continue doing well supplied offensives, it's those other people who have problems in reliably bringing stuff to bear.

Even then, ignoring my hypothetical timeframe, I have a hard time understanding why people think the doctrinal problem preventing a smallarms reform in OTL's over-by-'45 war is anything other than that, doctrinal. Administrative. Political.

I don't see the 'can't actually be physically done in this here industrial war' limitation.

The thing is it was British doctrine that if a unit was running short of ammo for the Bren then the infantry would sacrifice their remaining rounds for the LMG. In the situation you described then suddenly some of that desperately needed ammo is unusable in its primary and most effective lethal weapon. More people were killed by MG fire than rifle fire even in the US army which was the only one wholly equipped with a semi-auto rifle in 1944.
 
The thing is it was British doctrine that if a unit was running short of ammo for the Bren then the infantry would sacrifice their remaining rounds for the LMG. In the situation you described then suddenly some of that desperately needed ammo is unusable in its primary and most effective lethal weapon. More people were killed by MG fire than rifle fire even in the US army which was the only one wholly equipped with a semi-auto rifle in 1944.
If the BREN gun shot off all the ammo, it's likely the barrels have all been shot out.

Doctrine or not, it's hard to find examples when Squaddies would shuck rounds from strippers to reload empty MG magazines.

It's a theoretical that rarely seemed to happen, like that goofy Italian(or Japanese) MG that could use rifle clips, a feature rarely used that compromised the overall design of the weapon
 
If the BREN gun shot off all the ammo, it's likely the barrels have all been shot out.

Doctrine or not, it's hard to find examples when Squaddies would shuck rounds from strippers to reload empty MG magazines.

It's a theoretical that rarely seemed to happen, like that goofy Italian(or Japanese) MG that could use rifle clips, a feature rarely used that compromised the overall design of the weapon

Well it did happen in WW2 around Kohima particularly and certainly in Korea on Gloster Hill, the PBI were handing over all of their ammo to both the BREN and Vickers gunners.
 
Well it did happen in WW2 around Kohima particularly and certainly in Korea on Gloster Hill, the PBI were handing over all of their ammo to both the BREN and Vickers gunners.
With each Squaddies having a 300M FA carbine, likely things won't get as desperate in the first place for the need to keep the LMG fed in those examples.

And reloading link belts in the field is pure desperation.
 
It's a theoretical that rarely seemed to happen, like that goofy Italian(or Japanese) MG that could use rifle clips, a feature rarely used that compromised the overall design of the weapon

That would be the Japanese Type 11 Light Machine Gun. It was designed from the outset to use the same stripper clips as the Type 38 Rifle, firing 6.5 × 50mmR Arisaka. The rounds were fed into a hopper on the top of the weapon which held up to six of them.

The advantages were that it used the same ammunition as rifles and didn't require the IJA squaddies to take clips apart to feed LMG magazines, and that the Type 11 could be fed ammo continuously without having to stop firing to change magazines or belts.

There were a lot of problems, however. The Type 38 Rifle had a 30" barrel, and the Type 11 LMG had a 17.4" barrel, so flash was excessive, and rather quickly, the decision was made to bring along reduced charge ammo for the Type 11. The hopper was also in practice a Primary Dirt Collection Apparatus, leading to too-frequent jams. Its replacement, the Type 96, used conventional 30-round magazines
 
The thing is it was British doctrine that if a unit was running short of ammo for the Bren then the infantry would sacrifice their remaining rounds for the LMG. In the situation you described then suddenly some of that desperately needed ammo is unusable in its primary and most effective lethal weapon. More people were killed by MG fire than rifle fire even in the US army which was the only one wholly equipped with a semi-auto rifle in 1944.
If the BREN gun shot off all the ammo, it's likely the barrels have all been shot out.

Doctrine or not, it's hard to find examples when Squaddies would shuck rounds from strippers to reload empty MG magazines.

It's a theoretical that rarely seemed to happen, like that goofy Italian(or Japanese) MG that could use rifle clips, a feature rarely used that compromised the overall design of the weapon

.303 ammo was supplied to squads in bandoliers of 50 rounds - 10 x 5 strips - with usually each rifleman having 2 or 3 of them

The majority of this ammo would be used for refilling the Sections 25 odd Bren Gun Magazines as they were emptied (with the 2IC or loader running from rifleman to rifleman exchanging filled mags for empty ones for said rifleman to reload) and not to be chucked into the No 4 unless said rifleman was engaging the target himself.

The first job a section would do when a replacement arrived was to make sure they knew how to use, field strip the Bren and reload its magazines.

Everything from equipement to tactics to ammo resupply seems to have revolved around the Bren gun - indeed the 1937 pattern webbing does not have the ammo pouches for clips as seen in other armies of the period and instead has the 2 chest pouches each capable of holding 2 Bren gun magazines - in practice he would have 2 filled or empty to be filled magazines in one pouch and 2 Bandoliers plus other kit in the other with potentially another bandolier in his pack.

I understand that there was a magazine loading tool into which the 5 strip was inserted but this apparently was rarer than rocking horse shit and was never brought into the field

But the Magazines were certainly reloaded in the field from ammunition provided in 5 round strips

The closest analogy I can find in the US Army is the BAR Assistant in the on paper TOE for US Infantry Squads in 1942-1944 - who was armed with a M1903 Springfield - as I understand it because the ammunition was supplied in 5 round strips and not enbloc clips so could be more easily used for the BAR Magazines. The intention being that the rifle was lighter than the Garand and the assistant would be 'assisting' the BAR gunner and not actually shooting.

I suspect that in practice the Springfield was dropped and a Carbine was substituted or the position of Assistant actually dropped with the squad filling magazines when necessary with the ammo for the BAR magazines was either just carried separately or unloaded from enbloc clips.

Edit: as for ammo compatibility issues the difference in weight between the M1 and the No4 Lee Enfield is about 8 x 15 .30 cal Magazines! So the riflemen could still carry 3 x 50 round bandoliers as well as the M1 carbine with 135 rounds for little or no appreciable increase in weight - which actually means there is more ammo for the BREN gun because its not needed for the rifles!
 
The thing is it was British doctrine that if a unit was running short of ammo for the Bren then the infantry would sacrifice their remaining rounds for the LMG.
I believe I too have watched Bloke On The Range's youtube video about the Bren, his video with British Muzzleloaders about WW2 web gear carrying capacity, and his video for TFB's channel where he does a walk-and-gun reloading a No 4 from stripper clips that he's carrying in a vintage bandolier.

Yes, he makes the point about pooling rifle ammo for the Bren mags, but it's a claim made in the abstract; IIRC neither he nor BM go into any detail about how common it was for infantrymen to have to use their own allotted 50 odd rounds to feed Brens. They do emphasise these infantry companies had universal carriers to resupply them.

In the situation you described then suddenly some of that desperately needed ammo is unusable in its primary and most effective lethal weapon.

Assuming the hypothetical is No 5 and No 6 riflemen carrying noting but shortrange, weak carbine .303 loads.

Or you could issue our limited group of bolt-carbineers a mix of some downloaded and some Mk VII .303 for their own use (f'rinstance, the magazine full of PDW .303, but stripper clips of nothing but Mk VII; they'd just have to practice at the range RE the differing point-of-impact separate loads would produce).

Or you could simply have them carry nothing but Mk VII, or nothing but 7.62x33mm (because their 5/6 is in that same calibre). Regardless, if they're in a section with, say, two Brens and three Owens, or one Bren and five Owens, then they're not primary firepower, they're the guys carrying lighter weapons in order to carry ammo for the LMGs and heavy autocarbines. So they probably aren't even allotted 50 rounds of personal use ammo to begin with.

Needless to say, a bolt-carbineer equipped with a 7.62x33 halfstocked LE can't give from his personal stash to the Bren, nor can one with a .303 5/6 take ammo out of his magazine or pockets for use in an autocarbine. But they can carry mags/bandoliers of the other ammo class.

(Sorry guys, now is probably the time for me to mention that I've started quietly assuming it's best to go with the Owen in .30 carbine/whatever instead of just going with the OP scenario of issuing M1s. A lot of weight, yes, necessitating the ammo bearers equipped with No 5 & 6 rifle.)
 
Top