"What-if" British weapons of WW1 & WW2

[Canuck Wingnut]

So apparently Kynoch (the ammunition manufacturer) was, before WW1, offering the Austrian Schwarzlose Machine Gun for sale. Also apparently in their sales brochures they claimed to be capable of producing it, although that seems to have been marketing puffery rather than a developed production line.

So, a possibility: some South American country orders a run of MGs from Kynoch, who establish a production line once there's a scent of money in the air. Come WW1, a few months into the war the British are suddenly feeling short of MGs and, as OTL, Vickers production is slow to ramp up.
I could definitely see adoption of the "Kynoch" (Austrian origins conveniently forgotten...) Machine Gun in that case. It's not better than the Vickers, but getting more MGs to the front faster might keep a few extra Tommies alive a little longer.

 

[CB13]

Technical question: My understanding is thay6it is exceedingly hard to produced an SLR with a rimmed cartridge. Was that Garand specifically ever configured to fire the British .303?

 

[edgeworthy]

Technical question: My understanding is thay6it is exceedingly hard to produced an SLR with a rimmed cartridge. Was that Garand specifically ever configured to fire the British .303?

Its not impossible. The first Semi-Automatic Rifle issued for general service, the Soviet SVT-40, used a rimmed round.
The semi-auto Dragunov Sniper Rifle still does.

 

[CB13]

Its not impossible. The first Semi-Automatic Rifle issued for general service, the Soviet SVT-40, used a rimmed round.
The semi-auto Dragunov Sniper Rifle still does.

But technically more challenging? I can't think of a cartridge fired by an AR or an AK that is rimmed. I have to assume there's a reason why.... Hmmmm.

 

[ZSU-23]

But technically more challenging? I can't think of a cartridge fired by an AR or an AK that is rimmed. I have to assume there's a reason why.... Hmmmm.

Try the very same 7.62x54R fired by DMR'ed Romanian AK, the PSL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSL_(rifle) or the Zastava M91, which is another AK in 7.62x54R: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M91

 

[Rickshaw]

But technically more challenging? I can't think of a cartridge fired by an AR or an AK that is rimmed. I have to assume there's a reason why.... Hmmmm.

Not really. Seemed to work OK for the various .303in rimmed round LMGs which were developed before and during the second world war. Lewis guns, Vickers K, Vickers-Berthier, Bren, Besal guns.

 

[ArtosStark]

In the 1910s, a Colt 38 automatic cost twice as much as a top quality S&W 38 revolver, and you could buy 8-10 Iver Johnson or H&R revolvers in 38S&W(above average quality) for the cost of that single Colt. The Webley SL was even more expensive than the Colt

I had to do some digging on this one. The Webley self loader was selling to the government for £3 9s 6d. (£3.475 if you prefer decimals or 69.5s). At the same time the main British Sidearm was the Webley Revolver Mk. V. This sold for 61s. The larger Mk. VI was available from 1915 and (with 280,000 being produced) the price dropped from 61s to 51s. Now it is certainly not a guarantee that a similar drop in price would come with mass production, but if 10 s could be knocked off the price of the Webley Automatic it would be competitive with the Pre- and early war Mk. V (Though obviously still more expensive than the Mk. VI).

 

[Catsmate]

Technical question: My understanding is thay6it is exceedingly hard to produced an SLR with a rimmed cartridge. Was that Garand specifically ever configured to fire the British .303?

It's a complication but not one that generally precludes adaption. It's more of a problem with belt-fed weapons.
I don't believe there was a .303 Garand.

 

[Catsmate]

But technically more challenging? I can't think of a cartridge fired by an AR or an AK that is rimmed. I have to assume there's a reason why.... Hmmmm.

Mainly because at the stage when there was serious interest in assault rifles, and intermediate cartridges were being developed, rimmed rounds were considered an obsolete imposition. The only exception I can think of is the Federov and the semi-rimmed Arisaka round it used.

 

[Catsmate]

I had to do some digging on this one. The Webley self loader was selling to the government for £3 9s 6d. (£3.475 if you prefer decimals or 69.5s). At the same time the main British Sidearm was the Webley Revolver Mk. V. This sold for 61s. The larger Mk. VI was available from 1915 and (with 280,000 being produced) the price dropped from 61s to 51s. Now it is certainly not a guarantee that a similar drop in price would come with mass production, but if 10 s could be knocked off the price of the Webley Automatic it would be competitive with the Pre- and early war Mk. V (Though obviously still more expensive than the Mk. VI).

I'll have to do some digging. The price I saw for the pistol was far higher.

 

[marathag]

I don't believe there was a .303 Garand

IJN Type 5 copy of the Garand. IJN 7.7mm was near identical to the .303. Came from the license built Vickers and Lewis Gun copies

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

IJN Type 5 copy of the Garand. IJN 7.7mm was near identical to the .303. Came from the license built Vickers and Lewis Gun copies

It used a conventional magazine though not the Garand's double stacked en-bloc clip which really wouldn't work with a rimmed round.

 

[Catsmate]

IJN Type 5 copy of the Garand. IJN 7.7mm was near identical to the .303. Came from the license built Vickers and Lewis Gun copies

But that was the rimless 7.7mm round (i.e. the Army's 7.7×58mm Arisaka not the Navy's 7.7×56mmR Arisaka)

 

[Reggieperrin]

It's a complication but not one that generally precludes adaption. It's more of a problem with belt-fed weapons.
I don't believe there was a .303 Garand.

I think it’s actually the other way around. There have been umpteen belt fed machine guns chambered in .303, 7.62x54, 8x50r, 8mm Lebel etc etc etc., the PKM is still in service. The belt keeps the rims clear of one another and it’s just a bit of a fiddle arranging for them to get out of the belt into the chamber. Rimless is easier but it’s not a big deal, the Colt Browning was converted from .30-06 to .303 and worked just fine.

In a rifle the rounds are all wedged together in the magazine so there is a bit of a challenge making sure the rims are sequenced properly, plus the rims take space, plus there is the same fiddle of getting them out of the magazine into the chamber. Again, it can be done but it’s a little trickier.

 

[marathag]

But that was the rimless 7.7mm round (i.e. the Army's 7.7×58mm Arisaka not the Navy's 7.7×56mmR Arisaka)

I have seen both listed, and was a Naval Arsenal that was doing the development. Navy tended not to like dealing with the IJA calibers

 

[marathag]

n a rifle the rounds are all wedged together in the magazine so there is a bit of a challenge making sure the rims are sequenced properly, plus the rims take space, plus there is the same fiddle of getting them out of the magazine into the chamber. Again, it can be done but it’s a little trickier

Soviets didn't find the rimmed ammo troublesome for autoloader rifles, but the action itself

 

[tomo pauk]

Autoloaders with rimmed and semi-rimmed ammo were already in use in ww1, be it on series-produced guns or experimental stuff; belt-fed or magazine-fed.

 

[Catsmate]

I have seen both listed, and was a Naval Arsenal that was doing the development. Navy tended not to like dealing with the IJA calibers

Every source I've read (paper or web) or seen (FW video) lists 7.7x58mm, i.e. the rimless Army cartridge. Which I agree is rather odd, though not as odd as the two services adopting nearly-identical but incompatible rounds in the first place.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

One of my darlings is the British adopting and developing the FF series of 20mm cannon for aircraft and the F.5/34 specification which called for an 8 gun armed fighter plane following the work done by the Air Ministry's Operational Requirements branch further requires ultimately the same aircraft to carry either a 4 cannon or 2 cannon and 4 machine gun armament for those interceptors.

This is done on the back of testing that revealed that a twin engine bomber would require more than 2 or even 4 machine guns to reliably shoot it down and that explosive cannon ammunition would be the preferred 'point of arrival' solution.

By 1939 the Hurricane is entering service with 4 x 20mm MK 2 BSA CANNON (effectively a slightly faster firing FFL) and the Spitfire with a mix of 2 x 20mm MK 2 BSA CANNON and 4 Browning MK2 .303.

Although initially the weapon only had 60 rounds per gun - and only good for about 6 seconds of firing each hit would be far more damaging than multiple .303 hits.

Also it was found that aircraft that had taken damage from .303 hits were more easily patched and repaired while an airframe hit by cannon fire was far more likely to be written off and as aircraft began to be fitted with self sealing baffles in the fuel tanks and armour plate around the engine bulkheads and pilot seats for example - the .303 round was further degraded in its effectiveness.

Later versions of the gun particulalrly the Mk 3 with a 90 round drum introduced during the Battle of Britain and the later Mk 5 Molins/BSA belt fed gun (which could pull up to a 250 round belt) introduced in 1942 equipped most of the British fighters of the war with the far superior 23mm Hispanio cannon derived from the HS404 design replacing it among the late war fighters (where their vastly increased engine power made the much heavier cannon not such an issue) and it was this gun that armed many of the early cold war fighter designs of the British commonwealth and France

The Mk 2 weapon also began to be used as turret and tail guns on some of the newer bombers such as the Wellington and aircraft such as the Lancaster used twin belt fed cannon in their turrets (until turrets were mostly removed late war)

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Every source I've read (paper or web) or seen (FW video) lists 7.7x58mm, i.e. the rimless Army cartridge. Which I agree is rather odd, though not as odd as the two services adopting nearly-identical but incompatible rounds in the first place.

You have to understand that in the minds of the IJA and the IJN who the real enemy was.....