Why stop there. Who needs Brens? Just adopt the model 1924/29 LMG in 1928and the 7,5mm round, then join the French in an effort to get the MAS 40 earlier in place of the MAS 36 as a Franco-British rifle The British would probably insist on a 10 round detachable magazine from the strat, and that basically gives you the MAS1949 in time for WW2.
"What-if" British weapons of WW1 & WW2
- Thread starter Get_Em_Puppy
- Start date
The British needed BRENs (ZB26) - from the second they tested it
They might have settled for a 1924/29 instead had they not tried the BREN but they did try the BREN and well it was the BREN
I'm sure the 1924/29 is a fine LMG...no I'm sure its great...for an LMG that is not a BREN that is
Perfectly fine LMG
Oh what's this?
Awkward....
Bit of an obscure PoD but, maybe the
Webley-Fosbury automatic revolver is never developed and the money and man hours are instead dedicated to refining the more conventional automatic pistol, which the Army adopts before WWI alongside the Navy.
Instead of taking out the licence for the Berthier LMG, they develop the Lewis instead started from the Mk III as a basis which was built without the barrel shroud. Other improvements to save weight such as the option for a curved "Madsen Style" magazine for the LMG role, carry handle and quick change barrel and you could have something very similar to a Been or the Vickers K in service by the early 30s. Greater export and development and you could have a belt fed version as a vehicle machine gun, a lighter, cheaper option than the BESA without the added logistical headache of using different ammo from the infantry.
Perhaps knock on effects result in greater interest in automatic weaponry resulting in the development of the Vickers Machine gun to an air cooled version in half inch calibre as a bona fide HMG. Adopting the George Hyde SMG which would probably be cheaper than developing the Sten in the long run. Maybe a home grown semi automatic rifle tested to hell and back to allay concerns regarding the suitability of rimmed cartridges in such a weapon resulting in a fully matured weapon when it enters service in the late 30s.
Webley-Fosbury automatic revolver is never developed and the money and man hours are instead dedicated to refining the more conventional automatic pistol, which the Army adopts before WWI alongside the Navy.
Instead of taking out the licence for the Berthier LMG, they develop the Lewis instead started from the Mk III as a basis which was built without the barrel shroud. Other improvements to save weight such as the option for a curved "Madsen Style" magazine for the LMG role, carry handle and quick change barrel and you could have something very similar to a Been or the Vickers K in service by the early 30s. Greater export and development and you could have a belt fed version as a vehicle machine gun, a lighter, cheaper option than the BESA without the added logistical headache of using different ammo from the infantry.
Perhaps knock on effects result in greater interest in automatic weaponry resulting in the development of the Vickers Machine gun to an air cooled version in half inch calibre as a bona fide HMG. Adopting the George Hyde SMG which would probably be cheaper than developing the Sten in the long run. Maybe a home grown semi automatic rifle tested to hell and back to allay concerns regarding the suitability of rimmed cartridges in such a weapon resulting in a fully matured weapon when it enters service in the late 30s.
Webley-Fosbury was, like most Webley products, developed on Webley's dime and then sold privately to military officers, so not much money came from the Government to start it. If fact, in this case Major Fosbury would have shouldered some of the cost himself, which would have reduced the weight on Webley's shoulders as well. What's more, it gave Webley, and the man who developed their automatic pistols, experience with the concept, as well as some profit that came in handy when gun regulations were increased in the early 1900's. If you want to bring about a faster British Automatic Pistol I would say you could go two ways:
1) have the Webley-Fosbury come onto the market sooner so that a respectable amount are sold to officers heading for the Boer war. This helps Webley develop the design of the Webley 1904 earlier, realize the problems with it and get something closer to the 1906/1907 or even 1910 model in time for the 1904 trials for a cavalry pistol.
2)Either instead of or as well as 1), prevent the rise of General French and Haig to quite the position of prominence that they reached OTL, preferably by bring about the victory of the "firepower school" over the "morale school" of officers as opposed to the opposite which happened IOTL. Increased interest in mounted infantry tactics for the cavalry and the firepower of the soldiers in general is likely to expand the interest in obtaining an automatic pistol for the Army. A niche which Webley's design would probably be the best fit for between its refinement in 1905/1906 and at least the advent of the Colt 1911. Even then Webley's familiarity with the British Military and British origin would be advantages over Colt.
Ah, yes, I forgot to mention Mr. de Mole's tank. While I highly doubt it would have been useable precisely as designed, if it had been trialed when first presented in 1912 (?) it would have been a great base to start from once the British decide to start investigating tanks.
As intended it was twice as wide as the OTL Tanks which would have been a problem for rail transport and as long as a Mark VIII. In the early war they probably would not have an engine that could reliably move it around. When they shrunk it down, I would be willing to bet they would still decide to take the tracks around the body to extend track length and increase crossing ability. Which would probably bring sponsons back into the picture. I am not sure if de Mole's design could be more easily sprung than OTL Tanks or if the track and turning mechanism would actually work well enough in practice but having a good starting point would probably save them 4-6 months (if not more) on getting a tank in service.
Apparently the first Prototype had one from an Austin Armoured car put on it.
Edit: @Peg Leg Pom , Here you go
Having enough Hornsby tractors to move a good portion of the Artillery around would probably help. And if they have an example of sprung tracked vehicles maybe the tanks get springs as well? At least the Whippets.
Apparently a bunch of them got leaf springs, Wilsons transmission and Rolls Royce Eagles added to them at workshops in France. They could apparently go 30 mph.
A 'carrier' like the Universal or Bren gun carrier of WW2 would have been very useful in during WW1 in rapidly getting ammunition, equipment, men and supplies (and orders) up to the men across exposed ground and getting the wounded out.
Often early and mid war gains were lost due to the difficulty in supporting successful gains before teh inevitable German counter attack.
Often early and mid war gains were lost due to the difficulty in supporting successful gains before teh inevitable German counter attack.
Driftless
Donor
Yup. The original MacClean, preceding the Lewis was over-complicated. The Lewis as-we-know it worked well, but was over-complicated. IF ONLY, Isaac Lewis had stripped the concept to basics, and used the Madsen vertical type magazine; then you'd have an even better man-portable LMG.
The most likely reason is the Navy actually used and needed guns, for things like boarding and so on. A SMG is a lot easier to handle while going up the side of a merchant ship. While the RAF just wanted a new shiny toy.
Chennault AT carrier with a 20mm recoilless rifle. Somewhat resembles an armoured bobsleigh.
Anyone ever heard of this thing? I've only got this one photo, without much information.
The RAF did actually have a legitimate need for SMGs - got to remember that this was at the height of the invasion scare and it was expected that German paratroopers would attempt to capture British airbases to pave the way for a land invasion. The Lanchester wasn't just for the Navy, it was for RAF issue too.
The Lanchester was a good piece of kit, but it's just slightly odd that the Ordnance Board would pass up a substantially cheaper and more efficient SMG in favour of an outdated M.P.28,II clone, especially since there was such a panic about mass-producing SMGs as quickly as possible.
The RN likes lots of brass for Defaulters to polish. The Lanchester had lots of brass while the MP38 had none, ergo the RN must have the Lanchester.