Rearm the British Infantry for WWII

[Shapur2]

The point of the 25 pounder is the British learned from WW1 that division artillery couldn't really destroy enemy defenses, you needed heavier artillery than a 105 or even 150mm gun and generally a lot of shells for destruction of a bunker. It was more effective to suppress with artillery and let the infantry overrun it and knock it out with grenades, so they choose a caliber that could suppress well enough and be cheap enough for mass use. Heavy corps or above level artillery was then only called in for counter battery or destruction work as needed, which was only a fraction of the missions called for.

Except the creation of AGRAs enabled heavy artillery to be employed in just such missions, in suppressing enemy positions, while the field regiments would also be needed for observed fire against German counter-attacks when the infantry finally dug in. So having better heavy guns, and developing systems to coordinate the fire of a variety of caliber pieces early on would be an advantage. Given the problems with accuracy that the RA experienced with indirect fire, which No. 2 ORS reported on in detail in 1944-45, being able to land heavier shells or a greater variety of shells across the German defense zones would again be an advantage for British infantry entering the war.

The main issue is that FSR Part II was actually quite good in terms of tactics and command and control at division or below, but the advancements in artillery tactics were largely the product of having to operate above that level. The RA very much had to rediscover methods that had been employed in WWI but that were discontinued due to the retraction in size of the BEF after 1918.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

The boots illustrated wore and chaffed at the heels and the buckle up feature failed mechanically quickly.. Love the hat. The cav is cooler though both in the aesthetic and practical sense.



The blow back SMG is a 2 handed weapon. The carbine if properly designed and balanced is 1 handed in an emergency, and furthermore at select fire can be used in a conserve mode. Idiots who over design it are candidates for the mine clearing volunteer platoon.

Your expected ally designed it and intended it for general issue in 1929-1933. One decade later, your expected ally was still using 1890's era Lebels in 8 mm as his PRIMARY battle rifle and was having trouble making the 7 x 54. Maybe both of you should take a proven cartridge that works and design/modify existent rifles and machine guns to use it? Reinventing the mouse trap only gets you sued and you wind up with more mice, than when you started.


Grenade launcher. The later version was copied DIRECTLY off the USN K-gun.



Ain't that the truth, but even so... I have yet to find general issue boots that worked ever.



Depends.

The Bowie, with its complicated history is an evolved modern general purpose knife originating from the 19th century Spanish/Mexican hunting/field use knife. The model I think of; is a balanced general purpose knife with a clip point and handguard that was designed to mount like a bayonet and yet was still balanced for THROWING. It was something like this:

That is not something I can see as a general purpose knife. Use it to cut rations and throats? Throw it? YMMV.

But very worrying when, minding my own business in the Gents under the Grandstand at Lord's, the bloke next to you turns up with a 9" kukri!

 

[Glyndwr01]

The Americans did produce a Bolo Bayonet
View attachment 562699
issue that in place of the standard bayonet to British troops fighting in Jungle or Bush country and I think that they will use it more than the standard bayonet it replaces. Not perfect but good enough. Get the Gurkhas to teach your infantry how to use it in hand to hand combat and there you go!"

As to the PIAT, Talking to a vetran who fought ar Arnhem, he firmly believed it was the best MPATW available, A bastard to use but ever so effective if used with skill and had one huge advantage for the user, a very low launch signal. Often the enemy had no idea where the round had come from, now that can be a life saver!

Australian WWII SMLE M-1944 Machete Bayonet & Scabbard

New Made Item: We havent seen an original in years, this is a new made high quality reproduction Australian M-1944 Machete Bayonet or Bolo Bayonet for use by Airborne troops on S.M.L. E. #1 Mk 3 Rifles for use in the Jungle War against the Japanese in South East Asia. This high carbon steel...

www.ima-usa.com

 

[Magniac]

The guy who designed the Owen gun would have was born in 1915, he cooked up his prototype in .22 in 1938 when he was 23, the Owen gun despite bearing his name was a much different weapon to the one he originally designed and didn't enter service until 1942 IOTL, if the designs quality was recognised early enough it might be in service in 1940-41. It was more expensive than the STEN (anything is more expensive than the STEN) but was a lot cheaper than the Thompson M1928 (£200 a copy in 1940!) it was also virtually mud and sand resistant.

Crucially, he presented it to Australian Army Ordinance Officers in July 1939. It needed a lot of work then to become what it was in OTL but I believe the separated compartment in the action that gave it its near immunity to mud was present. If someone there had seen the potential that Vincent Wardell later saw, or Wardell found it earlier, that would have helped it along. It definitely would have helped if the army didn't keep changing what caliber they wanted it in. To get it into British service would still likely take it being presented to the British in a competitive form it time to butterfly the creation of the Sten. It would require a lot of fortune but it might be possible.

Evelyn Owen was a good man, the reason for the story getting started, but the '90s official history of the Owen gun makes clear that, yes, it was the engineers at commercial engineering firm Lysaghts who brought the project to technical fruition... and even then, further reading I've done indicates to me that Menzies' independent minded minister for the Army, Percy Spender, is the only reason for the Owen gun as procurement policy, moreso than anyone wants to admit. The Australian general staff were bad on this issue. Very bad.

Were the small arms officers on the Whitehall general staff genuinely any better? The 'gangster gun' thesis implies, no they weren't better; yet the adaption of the Bren, and the willingness to at least consider some modern shoulder arms during the thirties, would appear to demonstrate the opposite. But even then, those trials (or at least pre-trials) for new rifles and SMGs appear to have been tilted to either Vickers and BSA, major stakeholders in the UK domestic economy at the time (or at least towards the American friends of these conglomerates). And nothing came of them, other than perhaps the adaption of the Vickers Bethier LMG for the Raj, and even that was simply an extension of the Get The Base Of Fire Question Sorted process behind replacing the Lewis gun.

I think what was needed was a procurement process that allowed for at least Empire-wide weapons design competitions, to actively encourage submissions from the Lysaghts and the Small Arms Ltd.s.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Except the creation of AGRAs enabled heavy artillery to be employed in just such missions, in suppressing enemy positions, while the field regiments would also be needed for observed fire against German counter-attacks when the infantry finally dug in. So having better heavy guns, and developing systems to coordinate the fire of a variety of caliber pieces early on would be an advantage. Given the problems with accuracy that the RA experienced with indirect fire, which No. 2 ORS reported on in detail in 1944-45, being able to land heavier shells or a greater variety of shells across the German defense zones would again be an advantage for British infantry entering the war.

The main issue is that FSR Part II was actually quite good in terms of tactics and command and control at division or below, but the advancements in artillery tactics were largely the product of having to operate above that level. The RA very much had to rediscover methods that had been employed in WWI but that were discontinued due to the retraction in size of the BEF after 1918.

I'm not seeing where you're disagreeing with what I posted.

 

[McPherson]

But very worrying when, minding my own business in the Gents under the Grandstand at Lord's, the bloke next to you turns up with a 9" kukri!

True, but I bring a gun to a knife fight as well as the knife.

 

[ArtosStark]

True, but I bring a gun to a knife fight as well as the knife.

And a PIAT.

 

[Shapur2]

I'm not seeing where you're disagreeing with what I posted.

Call it clarification then; better heavy gun fire from the BL 5.5 inch as opposed to it in tandem with the 4.5 inch gun, will only help the the infantry in addition to the 25 pounder.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Call it clarification then; better heavy gun fire from the BL 5.5 inch as opposed to it in tandem with the 4.5 inch gun, will only help the the infantry in addition to the 25 pounder.

Sure, but the 5.5 inch is too heavy to have at the division level and inefficient, hence the AGNA. OTL they got artillery right after 1940.

 

[Shapur2]

Sure, but the 5.5 inch is too heavy to have at the division level and inefficient, hence the AGNA. OTL they got artillery right after 1940.

You are correct, it was issued to medium regiments, but that was alongside the 4.5 inch gun. If you take the 4.5 inch gun out of the equation, then you get a tandem of the 25 pounder and the 5.5 inch gun similar to the 105 and 155 howitzers in US service. No need for a third caliber, and Medium Regiments can offer a greater weight of fire earlier on in the war.

EDIT: I should add that medium regiments could be assigned to divisions, and later of course operated together in AGRAs

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

True, but I bring a gun to a knife fight as well as the knife.

Not going to do you much good if the wildly grinning gent from Nepal has already removed your wedding tackle while you're reaching for your gun.

 

[Aber]

You are correct, it was issued to medium regiments, but that was alongside the 4.5 inch gun. If you take the 4.5 inch gun out of the equation, then you get a tandem of the 25 pounder and the 5.5 inch gun similar to the 105 and 155 howitzers in US service. No need for a third caliber, and Medium Regiments can offer a greater weight of fire earlier on in the war.

IIRC the difference was that the 4.5" provided longer range for counterbattery fire?

 

[ArtosStark]

Any way to move up the AGRA’s. Though this may be moving away from an infantry focus. Still, it was kind of birthed out of the Battle of France and was apparently considered an anti Invasion measure. Could exercise Bumper be moved up to 1940?

 

[Magniac]

Is it not more important to be ready for expansion and use than actually what they are armed with?

I would give the British Infantry training text books as they are all going to be drill Sargent's soon and a French phrasebook and WWI battlefield guidebook? (bonus points if I can have it as a WWI not Great War guide book?)

More literally, get ahead of the game by increasing the infantry section to 12, maybe 13, which is eventually what the USA and USMC both did after America got in, and what happened ad hoc in at least a few British and Canadian infantry companies towards the end of the war thanks to forced amalgamations IIRC.

With the new 12 man section, do what some US army officers wanted done with their wartime squads, and create a third noncom to be 3IC. The USMC squad with three fireteams ended up having three noncoms!

My basic reform is to create a new rank of lance sergeant (not an acting sgt or rebadged corporal as lance sergeants have traditionally been in British regiments), then have the 2IC be full corporal, 3IC be lance corporal.

Any dramatic increase in Bren, and/or shoulder arm and/or rifle grenade firepower justifies having a third noncom to control the stuff.

 

[Shapur2]

IIRC the difference was that the 4.5" provided longer range for counterbattery fire?

That was it's primary advantage; it's maximum range was just over 18km versus 14.4-16.6km for the BL 5.5 inch, but in light of the 155mm long toms and 8 inch guns and howitzers received through Lend-Lease that role was somewhat lessened. Otherwise, when it came to firing in support of the infantry, the 5.5 inch was better and subsequently replaced the 4.5 inch gun after the war. I suppose the real question would be if the British Army can receive more of the 5.5 inch gun than the 4.5 inch gun, allowing the latter to focus on counter-battery and utilizing greater numbers of the former to deal with enemy field fortifications and troop concentrations. Or perhaps the RA experiments with sabot/rocket assisted shells?

 

[ArtosStark]

IIRC the difference was that the 4.5" provided longer range for counterbattery fire?

I think you are right. But a lighter shell and supercharge was later introduced that basically closed the gap in range.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

You are correct, it was issued to medium regiments, but that was alongside the 4.5 inch gun. If you take the 4.5 inch gun out of the equation, then you get a tandem of the 25 pounder and the 5.5 inch gun similar to the 105 and 155 howitzers in US service. No need for a third caliber, and Medium Regiments can offer a greater weight of fire earlier on in the war.

EDIT: I should add that medium regiments could be assigned to divisions, and later of course operated together in AGRAs

They had different roles though. The 4.5 inch field gun was for counter battery work, the 5.5 inch was a heavy destruction gun and heavier than the German 150mm.

 

[McPherson]

Not going to do you much good if the wildly grinning gent from Nepal has already removed your wedding tackle while you're reaching for your gun.

Seriously? No jokes now.

He had best be very fast. Measured human reaction time average is about 1/3 to 1/2 second to draw and shoot CQB. Insurgents found that out the hard way. They brought knives and forgot their guns.

 

[SwampTiger]

Unrotated projectiles UP-2/UP-3 would like a word. A Z-Battery would be useful, especially developed into a 5-7 shot trailer mounted using an RP-3 rocket. The 2 inch could become an early bazooka.

Adopt a license produced Beretta M1918 and/or M1918/30 allowing a select fire weapon using 9 mm Glisenti. You could adapt for 9 mm Parabellum or Mauser by adding weight to bolt, include a spring buffer and reducing recoil spring weight to allow the gun to run with more powerful ammo and lower the ROF.

 

[Blue cat]

Some stream of consciousness.

Good boots. I mean really good boots not just cheap indestructible ones.
Pistol. Why? Other than concealed for special purposes they have no place. So get rid of them.
So the default personal weapon is the SMG. Use 9x25 to make it a true 200m + weapon. MP34, ZK383 but with double feed lips.
Long arms standardise on 7.5x54mm French. ZB26 and ZB53 (or keep Vickers) for LMG/MMG. Arrange ZB26 production such that the platoon is stuffed with them i.e. as many of them as the SMG men can carry magazines for them.
Update SMLE and new production No4 to 7.5x54mm for reserve stocks and TA.
There is nothing in the PIAT that is not amenable to early use. HEAT heads can follow but the warhead with simple HE (or squash head) will do the job early on and is fireable from enclose spaces and in indirect fire. Anti tank rifles are one trick ponies.
Replace the ankle gaiters with short puttees.
Did I mention good boots?
Litre size water bottle.
The intended succession from 2 pounder through 6 pounder to 17 pounder would have been fine except for the (understandable) invasion scare so the plan was fine for A/T guns, had the delay been avoided.
Stop messing about with webbing set add ons. Make a proper rucksack to be worn over the webbing and discarded separately and fast.
A Gurkha acquaintance long ago queried why have a bayonet when a Kuhkri does all the field jobs far better and kills people better too. A better back up to the default SMG.
The 2 inch mortar was good but the 3inch heavy and short ranged so that needs attention.
Easy to say better radios but the technology of the day makes their use something of a skilled black art just to keep the ..**! things on tune. Just a smidgeon too early pre war to expect a simple reliable intra battalion lightweight set down to platoon level. But enforcing better radio discipline at higher levels would actually have more effect looking at the successes of German signals intelligence. Tactical radio contact with air forces from the ground requires a whole sea change in RAF doctrine which is not going to happen and a whole other thread.
From a morale point of view give the troops a decent hat when not wearing a helmet. One that looks good and stays on the head. The beret has a good track record.
The Battledress was excellent for it's day as was the basic webbing.
Oh, and good boots.

With the benefit of hindsight I suspect some better choices could have been made vis a vis radios for the infantry, but the UK didn't do to bad historically IMHO.