what if the British army had the Enfield EM-2 / Rifle, in 1938

WI the British had developed this weapon in the 1930's and started to issue this weapon to there active army Units in 1938 .
Would the British replace all there Lee-Enfield - SMLE or would they Pull the EM-2 from the troops that have them once the war started .

Remember if they kept the EM-2 this would add another type of ammo they would have to supply there troops in the field .

em1.jpg
 
Would have required a complete revision of pre-WWII British Army philosophy. The generals wanted soldiers to fire one round at a time in aimed fire, which was thought to be both more effective in killing the enemy and less wasteful of ammunition. Also, the EM-2 wasn't the long-range killer than the SMLE was designed to be -- IIRC one of the requirements for SMLE design was to bring down a horse at 800 yards.
 

Isn't that a picture of an EM-1?

Would have required a complete revision of pre-WWII British Army philosophy. The generals wanted soldiers to fire one round at a time in aimed fire, which was thought to be both more effective in killing the enemy and less wasteful of ammunition.

Yabbut all that aimed fire by riflemen wasn't the main part of either pre-war or wartime small arms doctrine--the whole point of the 1930s-to-1950s British Empire infantry section was to support the Bren Gun (or the Vickers Berthier, the Indian army's version of that weapon.)

Switching to an autoloader doesn't really effect this LMG-centric aim, nor does it effect the actual use of the rifle used by the tommy. Was single-shot markmanship to be abandoned when the British army nearly switched to the Pedersen between the wars, or when they considered adopting the Danish Bang? I think not.

Oh, even granting all the handwaves that have made this weapon possible in TTL, there is no way such a weapon is adopted with select fire capability, not in this era. Hell, it may only have a ten round magazine.

Also, the EM-2 wasn't the long-range killer than the SMLE was designed to be -- IIRC one of the requirements for SMLE design was to bring down a horse at 800 yards.

IMO Ward is really only positing a PoD where either (a.) the .276 Pedersen round is adopted by England, yet for some reason a bullpup autoloader is built around it, or, (b.) something resembling the late forties military commission that declared the .280 BIR the ideal smallarms round is convened at the beginning of interwar rearmament.

The original rationale for the .303 round (which predates the SMLE by a decade or so--and in fact was originally black powder ammunition!) doesn't really apply in such a 1930s world. Shooting cavalry horses wouldn't be a major requirement, f'rinstance.

Would the British replace all there Lee-Enfield - SMLE or would they Pull the EM-2 from the troops that have them once the war started .

If it were to replace the SMLE I don't know how it could do so any quicker than the Number 4 rifle. Industrial capacity is the determining factor.

Universal adoption of this new weapon strikes me as unlikely, but if this EM-2 is as good as OT's EM-2 then it just has to be kept around in some form or other, it couldn't be scrapped if it's already been ordered (the lack of weapons after Dunkirk would guarantee that).

Maybe it's kept for select use by commandos and paras?

Remember if they kept the EM-2 this would add another type of ammo they would have to supply there troops in the field .

Britain in OTL did quickly adopt a couple of hitherto non-standard rounds for the war, 9mm and .45 ACP. Also the 7.92mm Mauser round for tank machine guns, with .50 Browning, .30 Carbine and .30-06 in lendlease weapons (though the last one wasn't for combat service).

Here's a thought: the autoloader itself isn't adopted for widespread use, but the round it fires is (whether it be .276 or .280).

How about Number 4 and 5 rifles chambered for this intermediate cartridge seeing universal service by the end of the war?
 
Top