France gets the MAS-40 into service a year earlier

[Questerr]

What if France managed to get the MAS-40 in production in May 1939 and had a substantial number, say 100k, of them in service in time for May 1940?
IOTL only about 50 were made before France surrendered, none seeing combat:

MAS semi-automatic rifle 40, 44, 49, and 49/56

Let's say since the TL is moved up on their production that this is the production situation as of May 1939:


How does this impact proceedings of the 1940 campaign and thereafter? Might this influence the British to pursue the prototype that would become the SLEM-1/FN-49?

FN Model 1949 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Germany captures a larger quantity of MAS-40’s when France falls.

Minor small arms differences have zero effect on campaigns.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

If the Germans were to adopt someone else’s rifle they were more likely to select the Polish wz.38M, which was already in 7.92mm

No they wouldn't. The German Army specifications for an SLR forbade drilling gas ports into the barrel.

 

[marathag]

For instance I'd bet an SKS could outgun a Garand at most normal combat ranges and even then was only limited by the magazine capacity.

Wouldn't take that bet. Worse accuracy, and that's just for the crude sights on the SKS, before you get into the difference in sight radius and the loose nature of the SKS

 

[Richard V]

No they wouldn't. The German Army specifications for an SLR forbade drilling gas ports into the barrel.

So why would they choose the MAS40?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

It works and the production facilities are in place ready to go. The Polish rifle was only a prototype while in this timeline the MAS 40(ITTL MAS 39) is in service. If the Germans were to adopt the MAS 40 it would be for use by the occupation troops so their needs wouldn't detract from resources needed by the troops in Russia, much the same as they used French tanks for occupation duties.

 

[Rickshaw]

I imagine Britain will be much more interested in putting the FN design team to work designing the SLEM1 and that it is likely to enter service, at least with the Para's and Commandos.

The British Army first tried to replace the .303in SMLE in 1911. They had learnt the lessons of the 2nd Boer War and decided that they needed to increase the firepower of the infantry. Unfortunately, WWI broke out and they decided to continue with the .303in SMLE No. III (and variants). They next tried to replace the .303in SMLE (and variants) in approximately the mid-1930s. Then WWII broke out and the P.14 rifle which was to replace the .303 SMLE (and variants) in .30in was ordered from the USA, rechambered to .303in. Then they revised the .303in SMLE with the No.4 - basically a new rifle with a different German locking system for the bolt. This came into service in approximately 1943. It was used extensively in NW Europe. Finally, in 1949 the British Army tried again with the EM2 in 7mm. It was chopped off at the legs by the US adament adoption of 7.62x51mm NATO. In the end they got the L1a1 SLR.

So, the British weren't interested in whatever magic weapon the Belgians could create. They had their own problems, caused by war ( and supposed Allies), just changing the weapon they had.

 

[Richard V]

It works and the production facilities are in place ready to go. The Polish rifle was only a prototype while in this timeline the MAS 40(ITTL MAS 39) is in service. If the Germans were to adopt the MAS 40 it would be for use by the occupation troops so their needs wouldn't detract from resources needed by the troops in Russia, much the same as they used French tanks for occupation duties.

First of all MAS40 was produced in 1940 and less than 50 were made. Wz.38M was built from 1938-1939 and about 150 were made.

Second MAS40 has a gas port in the barrel so if that’s disqualifying then it would be too. But I do not believe that would be the case. The Germans thought gas ports caused problems that didn’t happen in the real world and testing would have verified this.

 

[McPherson]

What if France managed to get the MAS-40 in production in May 1939 and had a substantial number, say 100k, of them in service in time for May 1940?
IOTL only about 50 were made before France surrendered, none seeing combat:

MAS semi-automatic rifle 40, 44, 49, and 49/56

Let's say since the TL is moved up on their production that this is the production situation as of May 1939:

How does this impact proceedings of the 1940 campaign and thereafter? Might this influence the British to pursue the prototype that would become the SLEM-1/FN-49?

FN Model 1949 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Shrug. There are so many things screwed up in the French situation of 1940s that are human factors, that one piece of hardware is butkus.

Of all the wonder weapon arguments I've ever seen made by the people pushing a "magic solution" as a real time solution to a problem or alternate history point of departure, it still comes down to the people, who fix what they have, understand how to use what they have, train > train > train, have a clear vision of means and objectives, and KNOW what they do with what they have, that yields the positive results. So ditch the rifle argument and work on command, communications, doctrine and basic tactics and operational art. The French have the tools and means. They just need to put it all together better in 1940 and the Germans are screwed.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

The Germans would have rather equipped there occupation forces with existing bolt action rifles. They captured a quarter-million MAS-36 rifles IOTL, and use those to equip their occupation forces. I don't know if they ever had to dip into but much larger stocks of Berthier rifles that were also captured.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The thing is soldiers rarely fight one-on-one. At medium range the LMG dominates. US Army doctrine says one BAR is worth five Garands. One Bren is worth ten SMLEs. American troops sometimes overran Germans who hadn’t fire a shot from their rifles. Their MG34 had comparable firepower to a BAR and a squad of Garands. It’s cover fire from the LMG that allow the squad to maneuver in close. At close range the SMGs had superior firepower so with enough of those the squad is well equipped for the job.

Self-loaders are more versatile, and all things being equal they are a little better. But they are much more difficult to make compared to SMG and bolt action rifles (which most armies already had plenty of). WWII was a war of production numbers. For large armies the self-loader wasn’t as cost effective as buying more SMGs and LMGs. Unless you were the United States.

That's the thing, you're right that soldiers rarely fight one on one, so multiple soldiers having SLRs would allow a pretty substantial mass of distributed fire. What's the ratio you mention for the BAR and Bren based on? Or did they mean doctrine was one automatic to support that number of men? The reason the German riflemen weren't firing their rifles is that the bolt actions were that ineffective that they'd rather let the LMG do all the work. If the SMG were all that great, why did the Germans only issue 1 per squad and then replace it with the STG? Same with the Soviets and the AK.

By US military estimates the Garand was twice as effective as a bolt action and I'd bet that was even limited by the magazine size. Are they really that much more difficult to make than a bolt action? Per the link I posted about the MAS40 they expected to replace an equal number of MAS36 bolt action rifles with MAS40 SLRs without issue when they were overrun and production shut down. The US skimped on the LMGs and SMGs apparently because the Garand + BAR largely covered needs until Vietnam.

Wouldn't take that bet. Worse accuracy, and that's just for the crude sights on the SKS, before you get into the difference in sight radius and the loose nature of the SKS

I was talking in combat conditions, which favor the SKS, as suppressive fire and quick follow up shots matter more than range and potential accuracy at 500m. In a shooting competition the Garand would win hands down of course, especially beyond 200m, but then rifle combat really didn't happen beyond 200m in WW2 anyway. I'll be happy to produce a number of sources on that.

 

[Jericho7son]

German squad doctrine revolved around their GPMG's anyway, not their riflemen, who where also basically extra ammo carriers if you looked at it bluntly. A self loading rifle in a different caliber doesnt change much. Might go to a few specialist units but that is pretty much it

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

So, the British weren't interested in whatever magic weapon the Belgians could create. They had their own problems, caused by war ( and supposed Allies), just changing the weapon they had.

Historically the British were interested in the Belgian rifle. From 1943 they but the Belgian team to work with Enfield turning it into the SLEM1 which they then ordered 1000 of for troop trials. Due to peace breaking out this was cancelled. What I'm, suggesting is that with the French already having put an SLR into service is that the timetable is not unreasonably moved up with the Belgians being put to work as soon as they arrive in the UK. This would be because there would then be a reasonable fear that the Germans would sooner or later put their own SLR into service and that Britain should therefor have its own design ready.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

German squad doctrine revolved around their GPMG's anyway, not their riflemen, who where also basically extra ammo carriers if you looked at it bluntly. A self loading rifle in a different caliber doesnt change much. Might go to a few specialist units but that is pretty much it

They tried pretty hard to make a SLR work in WW2 and apparently wanted to replace the K98k with them:

Gewehr 41 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gewehr 43 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jericho7son]

They tried pretty hard to make a SLR work in WW2 and apparently wanted to replace the K98k with them:

Gewehr 41 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gewehr 43 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Those where not produced in significant numbers (admittedly the designs where pretty trashy and unreliable), and mostly went to specialists like mountain divisions or marksmen

A lot of their reports back might have been grass is greener stuff, captured PPSH SMG's where highly prized and used for trench hosing, even though the MP-38/40 where more reliable, accurate, easier to load/reload and didn't have the unfortunate tendency for the magazine to fall out of the weapon after the first round was fired

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Those where not produced in significant numbers (admittedly the designs where pretty trashy and unreliable), and mostly went to specialists like mountain divisions or marksmen

Because they were still in combat trials and were found so badly wanting that they were withdrawn from service.
By the time the Gw43 was ready bombing of factories started, the STG was ready and entering into service, and the Gw43 still had it's own significant problems. So having a limited number available they issued them accordingly.

A lot of their reports back might have been grass is greener stuff, captured PPSH SMG's where highly prized and used for trench hosing, even though the MP-38/40 where more reliable, accurate, easier to load/reload and didn't have the unfortunate tendency for the magazine to fall out of the weapon after the first round was fired

First I've heard that the MP38/40 was more reliable. I'm not saying the SMG doesn't have its niche, but it was a niche not a general role. The Soviet relied on it heavily due to the problems with training and production, so they cut off their production of SVT-40s, used their stocks of bolt action, and transitioned to the easier to make and use SMGs to maximize the effectiveness of poorly trained mass conscripts.

 

[Jericho7son]

Because they were still in combat trials and were found so badly wanting that they were withdrawn from service.
By the time the Gw43 was ready bombing of factories started, the STG was ready and entering into service, and the Gw43 still had it's own significant problems. So having a limited number available they issued them accordingly.


First I've heard that the MP38/40 was more reliable. I'm not saying the SMG doesn't have its niche, but it was a niche not a general role. The Soviet relied on it heavily due to the problems with training and production, so they cut off their production of SVT-40s, used their stocks of bolt action, and transitioned to the easier to make and use SMGs to maximize the effectiveness of poorly trained mass conscripts.

The MP 38/40's where reliable, certainly more reliable than stens. 98 percent of problems can be attributed to conscripts not being able to add and jamming a 31st round into the magazine permanently damaging the spring, and conscripts dragging the magazines through 2 feet of mud and then not cleaning them properly

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The MP 38/40's where reliable, certainly more reliable than stens. 98 percent of problems can be attributed to conscripts not being able to add and jamming a 31st round into the magazine permanently damaging the spring, and conscripts dragging the magazines through 2 feet of mud and then not cleaning them properly

Are you sure? They used the same magazines (double stack, single feed) and that was by far the #1 factor in Sten unreliability.

 

[Jericho7son]

Are you sure? They used the same magazines (double stack, single feed) and that was by far the #1 factor in Sten unreliability.

Magazine layout/orientation/build quality was better in the German builds, as was the weapon itself. I've fired both and found the MP-40 to be more accurate and feed ~cleaner~ and generally have a tighter fit and finish. I have also fired a PPSH at a range in Houston, everything about it felt cheap and loose and short of point blank hosing down a bunker (which you could just as easily do with a grenade) it didn't even feel useful as a club

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Magazine layout/orientation/build quality was better in the German builds, as was the weapon itself. I've fired both and found the MP-40 to be more accurate and feed ~cleaner~ and generally have a tighter fit and finish. I have also fired a PPSH at a range in Houston, everything about it felt cheap and loose and short of point blank hosing down a bunker (which you could just as easily do with a grenade) it didn't even feel useful as a club

Might it have been the PPSH was a bad version and/or worn out? I'm sure by the time a PPSH got to American hands it at least saw a lot of use and was probably through more than 1 war, plus built during a war when things were being rushed out of the factory, rather than it being a bad design. A pre-war PPSH was probably pretty good and was highly prized by the Germans for it's reliability.
Also, might the MP40 have been a post-war build or parts kit build, so was more 'fresh' than the PPSH?

That said I haven't handled either, so am operating off of what I've read or had related via youtube firing demonstrations.

 

[Jericho7son]

Might it have been the PPSH was a bad version and/or worn out? I'm sure by the time a PPSH got to American hands it at least saw a lot of use and was probably through more than 1 war, plus built during a war when things were being rushed out of the factory, rather than it being a bad design. A pre-war PPSH was probably pretty good and was highly prized by the Germans for it's reliability.
Also, might the MP40 have been a post-war build or parts kit build, so was more 'fresh' than the PPSH?

That said I haven't handled either, so am operating off of what I've read or had related via youtube firing demonstrations.

The PPSH was a Vietnam trophy, I am sure it had more than it's share of rounds put through it; maybe one fresh off the line would have been better than one being nursed along by a Houston Gun Range. Admittedly every Russian weapon I've ever fired has felt loose with poor sighting

The MP-40 was a Yugoslav capture, it looked and felt well maintained, no pitting or anything, mags where surplus heer stocks

The Sten I fired was from Mayala, RA mags. Felt similarly well maintained