British Army adopts M1 Carbine as primary rifle for Normandy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
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.

I am wondering if it is not simply a case of the 25 pounder "Gun/Howitzer" in the hands of the RA was just so good that it made the 4.2" look bad by comparison as it could do the same job, quicker and more effectively from further away.

Same for the AAA guns in a ground use. They could have been used in that fashion but when a lowly platoon commander could simply use his Mk18 set to call up an UNCLE and often have rounds landing within a few minutes from all the active guns of his Division and possibly Corps

Monty at El Alamein used his to keep shooting over his troops directly west as a very visible aid to which direction West was!

Of course by then the Axis air forces in north Africa had been totally ruined and there was not much else for them to do!

I mentioned the other day on the current Op Market Garden thread about the war diary of a platoon commander "With the Jocks" where he started his war as the AAA platoon Commander in his Battalion in the 52nd Lowland 'Air Landing' division where he did direct his battalions 20mm cannon against ground targets during the invasion of Walcheren Island.
 
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 :')
By 1918 the British Army Rifle Platoon organisation had evolved into ...
  1. A Rifle/ Scouting/ Sniping Section.
  2. A Lewis Gun Section.
  3. A Rifle Grenade Section
  4. A Bomb/ Assault Section
... by 1939 people seemed to have forgotten the wisdom of experience.

If there is a widespread adoption of the M1 Carbine it is only really anything like a necessity in Section 4. The Rifle Section contains the best shots and thus will prefer a SMLE, and the Rifle Grenade Section has a similar requirement. In the LMG Section is doesn't really matter.
 

Deleted member 1487

By 1918 the British Army Rifle Platoon organisation had evolved into ...
  1. A Rifle/ Scouting/ Sniping Section.
  2. A Lewis Gun Section.
  3. A Rifle Grenade Section
  4. A Bomb/ Assault Section
... by 1939 people seemed to have forgotten the wisdom of experience.

If there is a widespread adoption of the M1 Carbine it is only really anything like a necessity in Section 4. The Rifle Section contains the best shots and thus will prefer a SMLE, and the Rifle Grenade Section has a similar requirement. In the LMG Section is doesn't really matter.
Did you read this paper?
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._and_the_British_Army_in_the_Second_World_War
One of the main points was that by WW2 much of the WW1 experience was erased and even trying to bring it back was a battle that was only partially won.

I have to disagree about only one section needing the Carbine, because WW2 platoons functioned differently than WW1 ones, because the manpower situation was worse for a variety of reasons as of 1944 and platoons were quite a bit smaller, plus tactics were different given the refined artillery doctrine they were operating with. In combat the ability to sight targets over 200m was extremely dodgy, so the SMLE offers no benefits without scopes, which at best was only available to 2 men per platoon IOTL. Rifle grenades may still require SMLE's, but then WW2 platoons had 2 inch mortars, which took over much of the role of WW1 rifle grenadiers.
 
In WWII the British Infantry platoon doesn't need a rifle grenade section. They have the 2 inch mortar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-inch_mortar

Allied_Forces_in_the_United_Kingdom_1939-45_H7146.jpg
 
unless you can sort out a large number of issues, the brass aren't going to go for it

all otl production of rifles and ammo is in the us, that makes it one more thing that the brit need to pay for and have shipped over the atlantic. is this worth displacing the freight that would be on those ships otl? is it worth using their cash reserves on

politics, it's one more piece of material that the us has control over, what happens if the yank devert production to their own troops?

can the us produce the gun in numbers needed to outfit both the brits and the yanks?

is adding one more ammo type to the section level worth it?

is there enough time to retrain the armorers?

is it feasible to produce the m1 domestically? can they get a license?

is the no4 insufficient for their doctrine?

this is likely not a inclusive list of issues, and a rifle you have a steady supply of now is still better than one that you can't guarantee will make it to the front lines
 
Britain has plenty of Royal Ordnance Factories to build M1's if they so chose and could get the tooling, but I have grave doubts that they'd want to replace a full power service rifle with something designed to replace a pistol.
 
I've found a source that explicitly compares the bolt+spring weights of a .351 Thompson prototype with a 1907 Winchester, http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1599

620 grams (1.36 pounds) for the powerful Tommy gun to 1200 grams (2.64 pounds) for the 1907.

Yet some online gun enthusiasts reckon that a straight blowback bolt for .30 carbine is 3 pounds based on their reading of Colonel George Chinn's calculations from the 1950s (others reckon that you can actually go ahead and halve every Chinn formula calculation result for an open bolt weapon, i.e. a weapon that instantly moves the bolt forward to chamber a round on the first shot. Does that explain the lighter weight for the .351 Tommy? Or is it the case that the very mild mechanical retarding properties of the Blishlock--not the erroneous metal deforming claim mind you, just the bolt being two pieces working against one another for a millisecond--allow for the lighter bolt?)

Anyway, I assume an Owen in .30 carbine equivalent cartridge would have a bolt about as heavy as the '07.
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
The LAD looks interesting, but I think the numbers for ranges I've seen bandied about online for it conflates yards/meters with feet. When you conflate yard and meters it's not such a big difference; feet, however, are much shorter. Which makes sense when trying to parse the question "why is 7.62mm Tokarev having such long range performance attributed to it in this instance?"
-------------------------------------------------------
But why the Owen as a section-dominant non-team weapon, at least for a war that lasts until circa 1947?

Because it exists in service IOTL, all in select fire, was well liked, has manufacturing rights controlled by the Aust. govt., can be more easily field stripped than an M1/M2.

That said, yes, for the scenario of 21st Army Group going into OTL Northwest Europe '44, the M1 carbine and the Owen existing from 1942 still gives the M1 the upper hand, manufacturing and logistics train wise.
 
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<snip>
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.
My feeling is too increase the nominal size of the section to 12 (in line with the US army squad, still one less than the late war USMC squad), maintain 'gun group' for the Bren team name, and rename the rifle group to 'repetition-fire group', but have these be mainly administrative or marching formations.

Then simply divide this 12 man section into one of several different half-section formation types for the current tactical necessity, whether it be assault, patrolling, or digging in.

Also, do a reform of ranks.

Have the section leader be a new rank of 1st lance sergeant (those UK and Canadian regiment lance sergeant designations which already existed become 2nd lance sgt), have section 2IC now become full corporal/2nd lance sgt, and have the next best man on Bren or with a No 4 DMR or a possible rifle grenade No 4 be lance corporal, i.e. 3IC (much like the proposal that existed for the BAR man to be a third ranking noncom in the US army squad, but not going quite as far as the USMC reform of having each of the three 4-man fireteams being led by a noncom in addition to the squadleader noncom).
 
In WWII the British Infantry platoon doesn't need a rifle grenade section. They have the 2 inch mortar.
True, but assuming the two inch can only ever really be issued one per platoon, then either replacing or at least supplementing it with rifle grenades (which existed in differing SMLE and No 4 forms--cup versus spigot, regardless of tech there doesn't seem much difference in capability between both rifle grenade formats, tbh) at section level is always an option.

IMO adding rifle grenades seems like a good idea if you're imposing so much limited range ammo capability onto the section.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

I've found a source that explicitly compares the bolt+spring weights of a .351 Thompson prototype with a 1907 Winchester, http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1599

620 grams (1.36 pounds) for the powerful Tommy gun to 1200 grams (2.64 pounds) for the 1907.

Yet some online gun enthusiasts reckon that a straight blowback bolt for .30 carbine is 3 pounds based on their reading of Colonel George Chinn's calculations from the 1950s (others reckon that you can actually go ahead and halve every Chinn formula calculation result for an open bolt weapon, i.e. a weapon that instantly moves the bolt forward to chamber a round on the first shot. Does that explain the lighter weight for the .351 Tommy? Or is it the case that the very mild mechanical retarding properties of the Blishlock--not the erroneous metal deforming claim mind you, just the bolt being two pieces working against one another for a millisecond--allow for the lighter bolt?)

Anyway, I assume an Owen in .30 carbine equivalent cartridge would have a bolt about as heavy as the '07.
Note the barrel difference, the Owen was less than 10 inches, which means there will either be a fireball out the end of it or at very least significantly worse muzzle velocity and range compared to the M1 Carbine.

The LAD looks interesting, but I think the numbers for ranges I've seen bandied about online for it conflates yards/meters with feet. When you conflate yard and meters it's not such a big difference; feet, however, are much shorter. Which makes sense when trying to parse the question "why is 7.62mm Tokarev having such long range performance attributed to it in this instance?"
Longer barrel and volume of fire. Soviet manuals listed the PPSH41 having an effective range out to 300m, with a longer barrel that bumped up to 400m. Meters, not feet or yards. The Soviets never used imperial measurements.
https://www.kalashnikov.ru/pulemyotnaya-drama-krasnoj-armii/
 

Deleted member 1487

As an aside when did the 30 round magazine start being issued for the M1 Carbine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine
On 26 October 1944, in response to the Germans' widespread use of automatic weapons, especially the Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle, the select-fire M2 carbine was introduced, along with a new 30-round magazine.

BTW as an aside the FN 49/SLEM-1 apparently is quite picky on the ammo it wants to work with and doesn't like 'hot' loads, so captured 7.92mm German ammo meant for bolt action and MGs probably won't work well with the FN, nor will the heavy 198 grain standard SS bullet; the FN sounds like the Garand with the M1 Ball ammo, i.e it was too much for the gun to handle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Assuming that Britain goes for selective fire infantry for the up to 200 yard range; the simplest solution is just to swap in more Stens and swap out some rifles. No new training, no new ammunition. With some decent practice the Sten will cover the gap. Yes one can look for marginal gains by other choices but this is simple and would work. I have been an, L2 if not Sten, user and it will suppress out to 200 yards and beats the No4 when you get right in and comes with a pointy stick. It is a bit like a Sherman. If I were in charge of the USA in WW2 it is the correct answer. If I were a US tanker I want an M26 that works. For the British Army there may be better individual weapons but, at an Army scale, the Sten is the one that already works and is available with no changes in the system. The best is ever the enemy of the good and the cool choice is ever the enemy of the simply adequate. Post war was the time to look for fundamental changes. Earlier I advocated the 'MaxiSten with 9(or 7.62)x25mm ammunition, but that was from the beginning with an early war PoD. With the OTL Sten in mass production one takes what is already there. Are there better weapons? Probably. Are they already there? No.
 

Deleted member 1487

Assuming that Britain goes for selective fire infantry for the up to 200 yard range; the simplest solution is just to swap in more Stens and swap out some rifles. No new training, no new ammunition. With some decent practice the Sten will cover the gap. Yes one can look for marginal gains by other choices but this is simple and would work. I have been an, L2 if not Sten, user and it will suppress out to 200 yards and beats the No4 when you get right in and comes with a pointy stick.
That was the OTL suggestion. I'm saying the M1 Carbine allowed greater accuracy and versatility to greater ranges and could be had by just sourcing it from the US. Since the home army that invaded Normandy was sitting around training for years anyway, the additional training time for the Carbine is already there. 100m or more increase in effective range is more than a marginal improvement.
 

Thanks - so if the weapon was adopted as the principle rifle before D-Day (and the decision would have to have been made significantly before then) we might see the 30 rounder issued before June 1944 - in the same way that the Thompson SMG users all got a single 30 rounder for D-Day (the problem being that those troops who waded ashore and allowed the weapon to get wet found that they no longer had a 30 round magazine when they made it ashore).




BTW as an aside the FN 49/SLEM-1 apparently is quite picky on the ammo it wants to work with and doesn't like 'hot' loads, so captured 7.92mm German ammo meant for bolt action and MGs probably won't work well with the FN, nor will the heavy 198 grain standard SS bullet; the FN sounds like the Garand with the M1 Ball ammo, i.e it was too much for the gun to handle.

That's a fair point but Lee Enfields and M1 Garands didn't like it at all ;) so I cannot critique a weapon that has difficulty running enemy ammo when OTL it was not even possible.

The fact is that the idea (and I appreciate that it wasn't your idea) that you should pick a weapon so that you can use the enemy factions ammo should not be high on the list of considerations.

If things have gotten so bad that you are reliant on stripping overrun enemy units / supply depots for bullets then something has gone very wrong with your logistics and if that is the case pick up a KAR98 or accept that your SLEM might revert to being a very poor bolt gun.
 

Deleted member 1487

That's a fair point but Lee Enfields and M1 Garands didn't like it at all ;) so I cannot critique a weapon that has difficulty running enemy ammo when OTL it was not even possible.

The fact is that the idea (and I appreciate that it wasn't your idea) that you should pick a weapon so that you can use the enemy factions ammo should not be high on the list of considerations.

If things have gotten so bad that you are reliant on stripping overrun enemy units / supply depots for bullets then something has gone very wrong with your logistics and if that is the case pick up a KAR98 or accept that your SLEM might revert to being a very poor bolt gun.
One of the stated virtues of the Sten was the ability to use German 9mm ammo when they overran a bunch of German supply depots. That was helpful, but only a fringe benefit that had no bearing on the adoption of the weapon or keeping it in service.
 
One of the stated virtues of the Sten was the ability to use German 9mm ammo when they overran a bunch of German supply depots. That was helpful, but only a fringe benefit that had no bearing on the adoption of the weapon or keeping it in service.
Well, could use that ammo, as log as it didn't jam up from the poor magazine design. Unreliable no matter whos 9mm you would run thru it.

The other thing that needs to be brought up, the STEN MkII was no confidence builder, Being armed with a 2 Pound Sterling shoddy weapon all the way around, besides the limits of being a bullet hose at any range when it did work.

Would morale be better with everyone having a decent weapon change things?
I think so.

Confidence in your gear shouldn't be underestimated for making a motivated fighting man
 
Last edited:
Note the barrel difference, the Owen was less than 10 inches, which means there will either be a fireball out the end of it or at very least significantly worse muzzle velocity and range compared to the M1 Carbine.

You're a fan of the Kirally SMGs, surely you know you can put a longer barrel on one. I assumed everyone would take that for granted.

The Danuvia 43 has a 20 inch barrel; compare that to the M1's 18 inches. The .30 Thompson based explicitly on the blishlock Tommy apparently had a 16 inch barrel, though I can't be certain, as most sources confuse it with two other light rifle projects by Auto Ordnance.
The Chicago typewriter depicted on this page is not the later weapon that is renowned for having a barrel like an MG 34. (Plus it's barrel looks even longer than the prototype blowback .30 Thompson Ian from FWs had in his video.)

Longer barrel and volume of fire. Soviet manuals listed the PPSH41 having an effective range out to 300m, with a longer barrel that bumped up to 400m. Meters, not feet or yards. The Soviets never used imperial measurements.
https://www.kalashnikov.ru/pulemyotnaya-drama-krasnoj-armii/

7.62x25mm at 300 is pretty optimistic, 400 you're just about doing trajectory calculations on par with the old volley fire tactic that was designed to refight blackpowder-era line engagements with modern smokeless ammo.
 
The other thing that needs to be brought up, the STEN MkII was no confidence builder, Being armed with a 2 Pound Sterling shoddy weapon all the way around, besides the limits of being a bullet hose at any range when it did work.

Would marole be better with everyone having a decent weapon change things?
I think so.

Confidence in your gear should be underestimated for making a motivated fighting man

Patchett or bust when it comes to troop-popular SMGs used by UK & Canada IOTL, though the prototypes fielded during the war did use Sten mags.

Or you can just go nuts with quality over economy.
xmylua5482b31.png
 
Top