Vickers had been looking to get into the rifle market, as shown by their interest in the Pederson rifle, but yes BSA do make more sense.
WWII British Semi Automatic Battle Rifle
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
This is the only issue, with funding I think you will get one by WWII even if only in limited front line use due to demand at first.
FN, Brno or the French or Americans will be happy to help so plenty of options if only you can find a way to pay them?
Maybe if some of the Soviet volunteers fighting in Spain are equipped with semi automatic rifles it could shock the British government enough to seek a similar rifle. Spain was used as a testing ground for all sorts of new weapons by the Germans, Italians and Soviets so it's not unreasonable for them to do this. If they were to achieve a victory in which these rifles played a significant part then the rest of the world would have to take notice.
As an alternative to having Savage build No.4s would it be feasible to have them box magazine fed build Garands in .303? Granted using a rimmed round is less than ideal but they worked in the Bren and the SVT40 so it's not too awkward if the mags are loaded correctly. Such a rifle would no doubt closely resemble the Japanese Garand copy.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Problem is that would be the SVT-38 and that would put the British off for life
- it had more issues than a 1970s British Leyland car and was reviled by soviet troops in the Winter war - it was so bad that they prefered the Mosin Nagant 1891/30 Also its too late for a reasonable POD for the OP
The SVT-40 and Garand did not really hit their stride until 1941+ and only the M1 was a success with the SVT-40 experiencing quality control issues
If the M1 Garand was picked - don't change a damn thing (except maybe modify the Bren to 30-06) - however again it was not really ready till 1941 and even then production was still ramping up (US troops and Marines fighting in the Philippines and US Marines fighting on Guadalcanal etc used the 1903 Springfield in the early stages of the war).
Its got to be said that the M1 is probably the most successful 'long' rifle of the war - when ever British troops had the option between Lee Enfield No4 or an M1 they nearly 100% of the time went American.
But again its too late for the POD and I seem to recall reading that the US was not keen to share the weapon early on
We have this new type of aircraft engine we call the Gas Turbine or Jet. You have that very nice semi automatic rifle. Shall we do a deal?
There's a bit of an interesting ground for that. There was only one plant manufacturing new Lee-Enfields in the UK in the early part of the war, and it was badly damaged in an air raid in 1940. Perhaps the air raid is even worse, and the bulk of the machinery has to be written off.
On top of that, the British were also placing major orders for Lee-Enfields built in the US. While this did proceed OTL, the US Army was generally rather wary of the British trying to place orders for its own equipment in America - they would rather, in the interest of economies of scale and interchangeability, that the British should only place orders for arms already in American service. The Army had its way with some items, such as artillery and tanks, but not with rifles.
Combine these two, and perhaps you get a scenario where the US insists that the companies that are setting up new lines for British contracts should only manufacture M1s, and the British, having to accept this new rifle in any event, decide to shift upcoming production in Britain (which in late 1940 now has no active Lee-Enfield plants in operation) towards the M1.
Before April 1941 the British are paying cash and carry with hard currency backed by British Gold I wouldnt like to be the politician who told Savage they couldnt accept a massive and extremely lucrative contract for Enfields in 1940.
Probably easier to go with the Johnson Autoloader. Rotary mags and rimmed rounds work great together, and it was already set to be reloaded with stripper clips.
Unless Britain was to convert it's army to 30-06 the Garand would have to be redesigned anyway as I don't see the .303 doing well with an en-block clip so the Johnson might make more sense if getting a rifle into production quickly was essential but I think if given the choice Britain would prefer a box fed Garand. Converting to 30-06 would be impractical for the British armed forces as that round was not produced in the UK or Commonwealth countries.
It can't be too hard to change ammo production it's only a machine. The USA changed cartridge 3 times in 10 years, .45-70 to .30-30 then to .30-03 then finally to 30-06
The US at the turn of the century didn't have hundreds of thousands of men under arms spread right around the globe.
Savage wouldn't be told that they can't make rifles for Britain - just that they could only manufacture M1s for export. There is precedent when it comes to other equipment. The British wanted to set up production lines for the 25-pounder in America, but the US Army said they'd have to take the 105mm howitzer instead.
The Johnson also has the advantage of being easier to mass produce, though you loose out on interchangeability as a justification, unless you also assume that America selected the Johnson ITTL.
Well, it's a bit muddier than that. The US supplied Britain with vast amounts of replacement .30 rifles* and machine guns in 1940-41, and while they generally disliked them and shuffled them off to Home Guard use as quickly as possible, for a while some units in the British Isles were armed with .30 instead of .303 caliber weapons, with red stripes painted on them to distinguish the two. And that's before bringing up continued use of .30 and 7.92mm machine guns on British vehicles throughout the war. Which I suppose is another possibility - rechambering the M1 to use the 7.92mm cartridge already employed by the BESA machine gun. It would still be a logistical mess though.
*This included over 30,000 M1s. I wonder what British opinion was of them. Might be something to look up.
Last edited:
The 30-06 chambered rifle and ammunition supplied to Britain after the fall of France were an emergency measure. Britain needed something very quickly in case off invasion. By the time they actually arrived the greatest time of danger had passed and new production was replacing the equipment lost. As far as I'm aware none of the 30-06 rifles were issued to front line units.
That's why I said "some units in the British isles". Mostly airfield and coastal defense formations, to my recollection.
Thomas1195
Banned
Yeah, the lack of a British semi automatic rifle was the reason why I hate playing as British soldier in ww2 games, especially in close quarter maps.
Apart from the fact that almost everybody else in WWII (apart from most US and some late/elite German/Soviets) have bolt guns (or SMGs) why not just use a Bren in a computer game?Yeah, the lack of a British semi automatic rifle was the reason why I hate playing as British soldier in ww2 games, especially in close quarter maps.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Yeah, the lack of a British semi automatic rifle was the reason why I hate playing as British soldier in ww2 games, especially in close quarter maps.
Thats why you have your Sten SMG/Carbine - pfffttt
Edit: Not to mention that the majority of German SLRs in WW2 are total gash and as a German Soldat the K98 is your friend
Thomas1195
Banned
Well, unlike in real life, in game, players choosing German can pick Stg44 if as they want (the gun was error-free in games) and can gun you down quite easy if they are at the same level with you (like in Battlefield 1 you would see a bunch of German soldiers carrying MP18 running around). When you play as British Commandos or others British roles, the first thing to do is to scavenge for German guns on the map because Bren and Sten was too underpowered.