British Army adopts M1 Carbine as primary rifle for Normandy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Why not a belt fed .30 Carbine like the Soviet LAD? Simple blowback in a heavier weapon so the felt recoil was limited and it was highly accurate and effective out to 400m due to the barrel length:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAD_machine_gun
Looking a bit further into the LAD through Russian sources on it, it would seem that even the .351 Winchester Rimless case used on the Burton light machine rifle necked down to even a 7.62mm bullet like the M2 Ball would create something like the 8mm Ribeyrolle, but better due to the weight and ballistic form of the bullet, and even with a simple blowback system in a belt fed SAW-type weapon it would be highly lethal within 500m, which without an ACOG is beyond the limit of where a squad weapon would operate anyway.
 
Looking a bit further into the LAD through Russian sources on it, it would seem that even the .351 Winchester Rimless case used on the Burton light machine rifle necked down to even a 7.62mm bullet like the M2 Ball would create something like the 8mm Ribeyrolle, but better due to the weight and ballistic form of the bullet, and even with a simple blowback system in a belt fed SAW-type weapon it would be highly lethal within 500m, which without an ACOG is beyond the limit of where a squad weapon would operate anyway.

I think you are overthinking this

There is no negative to replacing the No4 with the Carbine

As I said before the weight difference between a loaded No4 with 10 rounds and a loaded M1 with 15 rounds is 8 x 15 round magazines (135 rounds)

So Tommy Atkins can still carry 3 bandoliers (30 x 5 round clips) worth of .303 ammo for the Squads Bren gun!

Without any increase in weight burden across the Section.

So keep the BREN - there was nothing wrong with it - and provides enough ammo to refill the Bren gun mags (25) about twice
 

Deleted member 1487

I think you are overthinking this
Maybe, maybe not...not saying every man needs a belt fed weapon, but if they did go down that route it would be helpful.

There is no negative to replacing the No4 with the Carbine
Indeed, never said otherwise, just spitballing off the tangent in an earlier comment.

As I said before the weight difference between a loaded No4 with 10 rounds and a loaded M1 with 15 rounds is 8 x 15 round magazines (135 rounds)

So Tommy Atkins can still carry 3 bandoliers (30 x 5 round clips) worth of .303 ammo for the Squads Bren gun!

Without any increase in weight burden across the Section.

So keep the BREN - there was nothing wrong with it - and provides enough ammo to refill the Bren gun mags (25) about twice
That is all true if they opted to keep that arrangement. I think there was merit in Lionel Wigram's suggestion to separate out the Bren from the squad to make it a platoon support weapon due to the tendency for it to lag behind riflemen (something that will get worse with an even lighter rifle in the hands of the riflemen) due to the weight of the weapon and ammo, while it's longer range will actually be able to be taken advantage of it if engages from a longer distance as part of a concentrated pool of firepower under the platoon leader, who can then direct it as needed in support of platoon operations. The Bren's virtues are rather wasted at the short range the rifle squad would be operating at, which is why something like the shorter ranged belt fed SAW I mentioned would be helpful at the squad level.
 
Maybe, maybe not...not saying every man needs a belt fed weapon, but if they did go down that route it would be helpful.


Indeed, never said otherwise, just spitballing off the tangent in an earlier comment.


That is all true if they opted to keep that arrangement. I think there was merit in Lionel Wigram's suggestion to separate out the Bren from the squad to make it a platoon support weapon due to the tendency for it to lag behind riflemen (something that will get worse with an even lighter rifle in the hands of the riflemen) due to the weight of the weapon and ammo, while it's longer range will actually be able to be taken advantage of it if engages from a longer distance as part of a concentrated pool of firepower under the platoon leader, who can then direct it as needed in support of platoon operations. The Bren's virtues are rather wasted at the short range the rifle squad would be operating at, which is why something like the shorter ranged belt fed SAW I mentioned would be helpful at the squad level.

The Russians are very good at the whole machine gun design thing - my only issue is getting it developed - getting it accepted, in production and available in large numbers - I appreciate that we are making a leap getting the Carbine to replace the No4 but it was at least designed and in production.

As for the BREN gun - the POD is basically not putting the No4 into mass production and instead building M1 carbines (instead of it and the STEN) and leveraging US production to equip 21st Army group in tiem for D-Day.

Now the BREN works and the British are geared up across the board to support it at Squad and Platoon level.

Refilling the Magazines and carrying most of them was a Squad job.

But to your point - I did see a video of a Royal Marine Patrol in Afghanistan a few years back where the Platoon commander (with 20 men) had organised his unit into 4 x 4 man rifle/rifle+GL fire teams and 1 x 4 man Minimi team (4 x 4 Minimis) which he kept direct control over.

So I would envisage a sort of varying unit where the organisation is as per 'OTL' except the Carbine instead of the No4 and Sten gun.

But when advancing to contact etc the Platoons 3 gun teams form a 4th Section of 9 men with 3 Bren guns under direct control of the Platoon Commander with the 3 sections becoming 3 x 7 man sections

My next issue is that a Section 2IC who acts as the Gun team commander is also responsible for keeping tabs on the ammunition in said section and letting both his section commander and ultimately the platoon Sgt know (who will keep the platoon commander aware of each units ammo status)

He is also responsible for Casualty care among the Section and makes sure any wounded is passed back to the platoon Sgt who in turn ensure said poor bugger is taken back to the company aid post and back up the chain.

Now this is not insurmountable - you would simply use the 'next senior private' and have him do that job in the 'Rifle team'

When the unit is not 'advancing' or the Sections are somewhat more dispersed or dug in the Bren teams rejoin the rifle section and come back under the command of the Section Leader.

Now who is overthinking it :')
 
One notes that post WW2 the British Army sought a joint replacement for the Sten and No4. They had access to the M1 Carbine or the M1 Garand had they chosen and the factories who could have made them in the UK if dollar exchange was the problem (viz the Italian BM59) but they chose to continue to stay with the Sten and No4 pending the No9 and even made the L2 replacing the Sten. It does suggest that they did not see the M1 carbine as the answer to the problem.
 
Or why not push through the weapon the British chose, quicker :-
SLEM-1

DF8301AA-1DCB-4872-876F-6DA56A13567C.png
 

Deleted member 1487

Or why not push through the weapon the British chose, quicker :-
SLEM-1

View attachment 491117
That says FN rifle. I'm guessing because it wasn't ready yet. And it was designed around 8mm Mauser for post-war use. Then they discovered the 8mm Kurz and dropped the program.

One notes that post WW2 the British Army sought a joint replacement for the Sten and No4. They had access to the M1 Carbine or the M1 Garand had they chosen and the factories who could have made them in the UK if dollar exchange was the problem (viz the Italian BM59) but they chose to continue to stay with the Sten and No4 pending the No9 and even made the L2 replacing the Sten. It does suggest that they did not see the M1 carbine as the answer to the problem.
Depends on who was doing the looking at the US weapons. I'm guessing it wasn't ORO, the people who recommended a lighter self loading weapon for the infantry.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Russians are very good at the whole machine gun design thing - my only issue is getting it developed - getting it accepted, in production and available in large numbers - I appreciate that we are making a leap getting the Carbine to replace the No4 but it was at least designed and in production.
Fair enough, subject for another thread.

As for the BREN gun - the POD is basically not putting the No4 into mass production and instead building M1 carbines (instead of it and the STEN) and leveraging US production to equip 21st Army group in tiem for D-Day.
True, though if they are going as far to heed operations research on the infantry rifle, why not squad/platoon organization?

Now the BREN works and the British are geared up across the board to support it at Squad and Platoon level.

Refilling the Magazines and carrying most of them was a Squad job.
In combat though the Bren and riflemen tended to have a number of issues coordinating, which Wigram saw first hand when commanding troops in Sicily and Italy. Tonight when I get home I will post a letter he sent back to a commanding officer about suggestions he tried out in the field that worked very well and wanted to get implemented across the board later. Truly ahead of his time and even more remarkable as he only entered any form of military service in 1940.

But to your point - I did see a video of a Royal Marine Patrol in Afghanistan a few years back where the Platoon commander (with 20 men) had organised his unit into 4 x 4 man rifle/rifle+GL fire teams and 1 x 4 man Minimi team (4 x 4 Minimis) which he kept direct control over.

So I would envisage a sort of varying unit where the organisation is as per 'OTL' except the Carbine instead of the No4 and Sten gun.

But when advancing to contact etc the Platoons 3 gun teams form a 4th Section of 9 men with 3 Bren guns under direct control of the Platoon Commander with the 3 sections becoming 3 x 7 man sections

My next issue is that a Section 2IC who acts as the Gun team commander is also responsible for keeping tabs on the ammunition in said section and letting both his section commander and ultimately the platoon Sgt know (who will keep the platoon commander aware of each units ammo status)

He is also responsible for Casualty care among the Section and makes sure any wounded is passed back to the platoon Sgt who in turn ensure said poor bugger is taken back to the company aid post and back up the chain.

Now this is not insurmountable - you would simply use the 'next senior private' and have him do that job in the 'Rifle team'

When the unit is not 'advancing' or the Sections are somewhat more dispersed or dug in the Bren teams rejoin the rifle section and come back under the command of the Section Leader.

Now who is overthinking it :')
I'll post the letter later, it covers all of this in detail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 1487

Many thanks.
Apparently 2,000,000 were ordered. The original Bren was in 7.92mm, the BESA used this round and Vickers MMG’s for tanks were available.
As round same as used by Germans, captured ammo could be used by advancing troops.
Not necessarily depending on operating pressures and issues like barrel twist rate, which depends on bullet weight. It might over or under gas the gun and tuning the gas system isn't necessarily that easy in the field. Since the Germans used a wide variety of 7.92 ammo with different pressures, bullet weights, and powder loads it could get tricky using their ammo in the field. It's not like 9mm parabellum, which was pretty standardized.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Besa was a straight copy of the Czech gun, so would use ammunition of the same standard as the Czechs. Czech weapons were taken into German service without issue, so the ammunition must have been of the same specification as the Germans. If Britain is producing ammunition of standard German specification for the Besa they're not going to build a 7.92mm rifle that uses a different standard of ammunition to that they are already producing.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Besa was a straight copy of the Czech gun, so would use ammunition of the same standard as the Czechs. Czech weapons were taken into German service without issue, so the ammunition must have been of the same specification as the Germans. If Britain is producing ammunition of standard German specification for the Besa they're not going to build a 7.92mm rifle that uses a different standard of ammunition to that they are already producing.
MGs and SLRs are different animals when it comes to tuning them to a certain type of ammo.
The Czechs copied German ammo spec because they assumed they'd be fighting them in the next war, so it would make sense to be able to use their MG ammo if captured, while the market for weapons made in 8mm Mauser was quite large, so being an export based economy they wanted to be able to sell to nations using the caliber, which was basically all the nations in their region or nearby.
I'll do some research later into what sort of ammo the FN rifle used, but for instance the flat base 154 grain cartridge wouldn't work well in a rifle set up for the 198 grain heavy bullet and vice versa.
 
MGs and SLRs are different animals when it comes to tuning them to a certain type of ammo.
The Czechs copied German ammo spec because they assumed they'd be fighting them in the next war, so it would make sense to be able to use their MG ammo if captured, while the market for weapons made in 8mm Mauser was quite large, so being an export based economy they wanted to be able to sell to nations using the caliber, which was basically all the nations in their region or nearby.
I'll do some research later into what sort of ammo the FN rifle used, but for instance the flat base 154 grain cartridge wouldn't work well in a rifle set up for the 198 grain heavy bullet and vice versa.

I am not 100% sure but like the later FN FAL I seem to recall that the SAFN 49 has an adjustable gas system to allow it to continue to cycle with weaker ammo or in yicky conditions etc.
 

Deleted member 1487

I am not 100% sure but like the later FN FAL I seem to recall that the SAFN 49 has an adjustable gas system to allow it to continue to cycle with weaker ammo or in yicky conditions etc.
I'm sure it did, but I've heard mixed things about adjustable gas systems especially of early rifles and that doesn't help with the twist rate of the barrel depending on the weight of the bullets; keyhol-ing bullets aren't really of that much use.
 
I'm sure it did, but I've heard mixed things about adjustable gas systems especially of early rifles and that doesn't help with the twist rate of the barrel depending on the weight of the bullets; keyhol-ing bullets aren't really of that much use.
I don't know about you, but I still don't want to be hit by one. They might not be accurate, but they still do damage.
 
Here is Wigram letter I talked about

Did anyone else read that in a posh English voice?

Thanks for the share - interesting point about infiltrators - the lessons from Malaya having been absorbed and understood but not then yet acted upon.

I have seen suggestions by other authors etc that instead of Commando units there should have been a commando school but for the commando trained men to return to their units in order to spread the commando ethos which would include infiltration skills

The implication is that those commando units robbed line regts of what Wignam referred to as 'Gutful men'

Interesting point about the Anti tank gunners - I am reminded of the novel The Thin Red Line - where it mentions the Battalions newly formed anti tank gun platoon - which had been staffed with the malingerers and defaulters from the rest of the Battalion.

I wonder if the same was true of British Battalion AT Platoons - while Royal Artillery units had a better quality

Lastly the Light AAA and Chemical mortar units - its oten written that by the end of the Normandy campaign that British tanks units no longer manned their AAA Tanks due to lack of use - using the crews etc as replacements.
 

Deleted member 1487

Did anyone else read that in a posh English voice?

Thanks for the share - interesting point about infiltrators - the lessons from Malaya having been absorbed and understood but not then yet acted upon.

I have seen suggestions by other authors etc that instead of Commando units there should have been a commando school but for the commando trained men to return to their units in order to spread the commando ethos which would include infiltration skills

The implication is that those commando units robbed line regts of what Wignam referred to as 'Gutful men'

Interesting point about the Anti tank gunners - I am reminded of the novel The Thin Red Line - where it mentions the Battalions newly formed anti tank gun platoon - which had been staffed with the malingerers and defaulters from the rest of the Battalion.

I wonder if the same was true of British Battalion AT Platoons - while Royal Artillery units had a better quality

Lastly the Light AAA and Chemical mortar units - its oten written that by the end of the Normandy campaign that British tanks units no longer manned their AAA Tanks due to lack of use - using the crews etc as replacements.
I found those last parts interesting as well, I'm surprised they didn't do what seemingly everyone else did with AAA: use it for ground attack.
Also I'm surprised the British 4.2 inch mortars were so inaccurate, seems like everyone else loved their heavy mortars.
 
Top