Lions of Babylon: the Third British - American War circa 1956

I am not sure if a resurgence of colonialism is possible (certainly from the British) as the writing had been on the wall for a generation or more. Certainly there would be a slower and possibly more bloody route to independence for many of the European Colonies.
I think india is definitely independent or a dominion but the rest of the empire will likely be held or transitioned into a real british led commonwealth (like the eu and germany). British imperial ambitions will still be there (remember suez ittl) and they will still be a great power with a full economic recivery and no ww 2. I agree that its highly unlikely they would ever fight the us though...way too much trade interests, cultural connections, and no real areas of conflict. Remember british strategy has been to stay on the good side of the usa since ww1.
 
I think india is definitely independent or a dominion but the rest of the empire will likely be held or transitioned into a real british led commonwealth (like the eu and germany). British imperial ambitions will still be there (remember suez ittl) and they will still be a great power with a full economic recivery and no ww 2. I agree that its highly unlikely they would ever fight the us though...way too much trade interests, cultural connections, and no real areas of conflict. Remember british strategy has been to stay on the good side of the usa since ww1.

I would say that Suez was more about keeping the Canal open and not under Soviet influence.

British strategy has been to stay on the good side of the usa since the war of 1812 ;)
 
Why would the British not continue using the same line infantry model they had been using in colonial warfare to date?

Where would the rebels in the colonies be getting the advanced weaponry that would justify a major sea change in how counter insurgencies are fought?

We’re talking about a world with no WW2 and where the Soviets are falling apart. There’s no mass of WW2 surplus guns or SKS/AK-47’s to funnel to rebels. Rebels are going to be armed with bolt action rifles.

You actually proved my point.

OP indicates WW2 never happened so no Panzer Armies racing across the Soviet Steppes. However plan 1919 had been envisaged but never implemented. The Lieutenants in the trenches in 1918 by 1950’s would be in the most senior positions at the MOD. The current instructors at Sandhurst would’ve been themselves taught by men who served in WW1.

Conflicts in the 1920’s & 30’s involving the British Army were irregular warfare battles. The Irish War of Independence, involved assassinations of ‘Key figures’ therefore procedures and skills would need to be learned to prevent this form of attack. The Imperial establishment wouldn’t like their game of cricket to be disturbed and heaven forbid if afternoon tea was interrupted. Then there would be her ladyship’s game of Crochet on the lawn. This is SAS type operations. Enemy commanders would themselves become prime targets for the Crown Forces. Again this is SAS type ops.

Flying columns would be the prime movers, leading to ambushes, leading to skills to ambush the ambushes, raiding enemy compounds etc; this is commando type ops.

In the Palestinian conflict people were tied to the fronts of trains to prevent ambushes. The 2 pounder pom-pom gun was used to lay down covering fire. Most likely this vehicle mounted gun would be the heaviest weapon in the arsenal, similar to the 40mm grenade launchers used today. Again instructors at Sandhurst would be more familiar with this type of warfare so more innovative commanders, Wingate, Sterling, Maynewould become more prominent.

As by mid 50’s both the US & BE would have nuclear weapons. Whilst these may be few in number, and never been used in combat, the rational for large set battles, Waterloo, Somme etc would be diminished, a nuclear detonation would, ‘in theory in OP’s timeline’ wipe out large battlefield armies in minutes, rather than days/weeks of WW1.

Britain would still be using the good old .303 as per otl there would still be millions of rounds still lying about.
Automatic rifles were around ie Colt Monitor but these would be expensive and no readily available to either military or insurgents.
 
Britain would still be using the good old .303 as per otl there would still be millions of rounds still lying about.
The poms had plans to move onto a semi-automatic rifle at various points in the 1920s and 30s (variants of the Pederson were produced on a small scale by Vickers) and did some prototyping of new rifles during the war (e.g. the SLEM-1 developed by a Belgian design team in the UK, later the basis for the FN1949 and FN FAL)... Without the triple whammy of the Great Depression, rearmament and war, I'd give quite good odds that they've got a semi-automatic battle rifle (and not in .303) issued to (at least) the regulars by 1956.

.303 is likely still around but probably only in second line roles, colonial auxiliaries and possibly territorials.
 
The poms had plans to move onto a semi-automatic rifle at various points in the 1920s and 30s (variants of the Pederson were produced on a small scale by Vickers) and did some prototyping of new rifles during the war (e.g. the SLEM-1 developed by a Belgian design team in the UK, later the basis for the FN1949 and FN FAL)... Without the triple whammy of the Great Depression, rearmament and war, I'd give quite good odds that they've got a semi-automatic battle rifle (and not in .303) issued to (at least) the regulars by 1956.

.303 is likely still around but probably only in second line roles, colonial auxiliaries and possibly territorials.

FN produced a license version of the Colt Monitor, as well as the SLEM-1 however these were rejected due to the sheer amount of .303 still lying around. This either equates to an automatic.303 in the pipeline or the .28. FN FAL coming in late 50’s early 60’s.
 
FN produced a license version of the Colt Monitor, as well as the SLEM-1 however these were rejected due to the sheer amount of .303 still lying around. This either equates to an automatic.303 in the pipeline or the .28. FN FAL coming in late 50’s early 60’s.
Without WW2 production of .303 during the '40s is much lower than OTL, while by 1950-55 the WW1 surplus stock is likely of an age where issues with decaying primers and propellant start cropping up. Additionally, without WW2 the poms are in less dire economic circumstances than 1945-1950 OTL (or 1928-35 when the pre-war effort at a semi-auto died...), less reason to skimp and save by reusing .303...

The BAR likely missed out on Pommy interest due to having other, better, weapons filling the LMG role already while also being significantly heavier than other semi-auto/battle rifle designs (6-9kg depending on version vs 4.3-5.3kg for the M1 rifle).
 
7D29B4CD-494C-452B-968E-D0B0C4855680.jpeg
Without WW2 production of .303 during the '40s is much lower than OTL, while by 1950-55 the WW1 surplus stock is likely of an age where issues with decaying primers and propellant start cropping up. Additionally, without WW2 the poms are in less dire economic circumstances than 1945-1950 OTL (or 1928-35 when the pre-war effort at a semi-auto died...), less reason to skimp and save by reusing .303...

The BAR likely missed out on Pommy interest due to having other, better, weapons filling the LMG role already while also being significantly heavier than other semi-auto/battle rifle designs (6-9kg depending on version vs 4.3-5.3kg for the M1 rifle).

Fair enough.
Would we be looking at this being introduced from FN then?
 
Maybe a short version of the .303 much as 7.62mm NATO (308 win) was a shortened 30-06 standard in the 1903 and m1 Garand. I believe the US without NATO influence would cling to the larger -06 round in their main battle rifle (we tend to do that with our guns).

I think the small .30 caliber carbine would exist but in the support role it was intended. Army doctrine called for infantry front line troops armed exclusively with LMGs and MBRs such as the BAR and M1. As was my experience, pilots would like the short barreled weapon much as AH-1 gunship drivers did with the M4 during the invasion of Iraq because it could be stuffed into the tight cockpit. At the time the short weapon was not favored in the Marine Corps and the infantry did not adopted until later in the war. Even today the Corps continues to develop long barreled weapons like the M27, basicly a gas piston select fire M16A4.

I believe the Americans would stubbornly field large 30 caliber long guns over higher capacity weapons well past even the 1960s.
 
Top