Why is it the Brits never had a semi-auto rifle?

[gunnersman]

The US had the Garand and the M1 Carbine. The idea was proven in battle. And it was not like they are unable to make an automatic weapon. They have the Bren, Sten, Vickers and Hispano (I'm sure I'm missing one or three).

Was it a lack of material? Was it just easier to use what's already in the field? Or was it a doctrine surrounding the bolt action rifle over an automatic rifle. Were the brass afraid that ammo would be wasted on an automatic rifle?

That's my one big dislike about playing with the Common Wealth. There is not the apparent fire downrange like the US has.

[LongLeftFlank]

Good question; you'd think the Arsenal of Democracy could've added it to the Lend Lease heap. But then, the Germans never knocked the Garand either the way they did the bazooka. Maybe by 1943-44 it was pretty clear that MGs were dominant and semiauto didn't add that much more punch to squad FP to justify the conversion problems. Assault rifles capable of full auto, on the other hand....

[JonS]

ISTR that the British very nearly adopted an AR sometime in the inter-war period, then the bean-counters noticed they still hundreds of thousands of SMLEs in storage, 10s of millions of rounds in deports, and entire training and support structures based on the use of the SMLE. Replacing all that in the midst of aggresive cuts to the defence budget (and the Depression) was deemed a non-starter.

(edit: hmm. Just had a quick rummage at Wikipedia, and couldn't find anything relevant. It's entirely possible I'm misunderestimating my memory, and have mangled the story )

[SelfLoadingRifle]

I think that everyone is looking at this the wrong way around. Most armies of that era were conservative in outlook when it came to weapons. The bolt action rifle had served them well in the past and there was no reason for this happy state of affairs to change. In the case of us Brits The SMLE and the No 4 were quite simply the best battle bolt action rifles in the world (and they still are). True the Russians accepted the SVT40 automatic rifle for service, but it never came close to eclipsing the tried and tested Mosin Nagant.

The Americans were truly progressive in adopting the M1 Garand and in doing so showed all of us the way forward.

SLR

[John Kettler]

gunnersman,

Considering the Germans at Mons ran into Enfield equipped Tommies during World War I and thought "ten rounds rapid" was MG fire, I think the answer lies there. This shows just how fast this rifle could fire, and you'll note it's not climbing much off the aimpoint either. Now, imagine the target is not well dispersed individual men, but massed infantry in column!

Ten rounds in 9 seconds (target and range defined in vid)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mons

Morning

The Battle of Mons opened at dawn on 23 August with a German artillery bombardment of the British lines. Understanding that the salient formed by the loop in the canal was the weak-point of the British defences, throughout the day the Germans focused their primary efforts on attacking the British there.[24] At 9:00 a.m., the first German infantry assault began, with the Germans attempting to force their way across the four bridges that crossed the canal at the salient.[25] Four German battalions attacked the Nimy bridge, which was defended by a single company of the 4th Battalion, Royal Fusiliers, as well as a machine gun section led by Lieutenant Maurice Dease. Advancing at first in close column – "parade ground" formation[26] – the Germans made nearly unmissable targets for the well-trained British riflemen (who were evidently making hits at over 1,000 yards (910 m)),[27] and were mown down by rifle, machine gun, and artillery fire.[28] Indeed, so heavy was the British rifle fire throughout the battle that the Germans thought they were facing batteries of machine guns.[29]

24 Hamilton, pp. 13–14.

25 Hamilton, p. 14.

26 Walter Bloem, The Advance from Mons 1914: The Experiences of a German Infantry Officer, p. 39.

27 Bloem, p. 41.

28 Gordon, p. 32.

29 Tuchman, p. 302.

I suspect the British thought they had a more than adequate rifle, of which they had considerable stocks, and really couldn't afford to interrupt war production, presuming they'd even had a good design of their own. I doubt the British would've even considered adopting the M1 Garand, especially since it fired .30 '06, while the Enfield shot .303.

Here's a centerfire newbie on his first outing with an Enfield he's never shot.

Two friends shooting; the guy's friend, who's a lefty like me, got off 5 aimed shots in 15 seconds. Our hero does rather better.

I rest my case.

Regards,

John Kettler

[gunnergoz]

Well done, John, Kudos.

[John Kettler]

gunnergoz,

Thanks! Got some grog education from doing this.

I've fired three bolt action rifle types in my day, the .22 LR Marlin we got when I was 12 (considerable plinking and target shooting), the WW II Kar 98K (one outing for functionality testing) we bought for my brother while he was deployed overseas, and a Steyr SSG. None had an action even remotely in the league of the Enfields I showed, and, being a southpaw and shooting left, I needed all the help I could get. There is NO way (long pull, slow action) I could've cranked 5 rounds in 15 seconds from the Kar 98K, which was the direct rival to the Enfield, and while the SSG had a smooth action, in no way was it designed for rapid fire, being a precision tolerance scoped countersniper weapon. The Marlin was anything but quick.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

gunnersman,

To my surprise, I've discovered the British DID formally accept a semiautomatic rifle--during WW I no less, but it was never produced. Behold the Farquhar-Hill .303!

http://world.guns.ru/rifle/autoloading-rifles/brit/self-loading-rifle-farquhar-hill-e.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Fernando]

Why almost no non-British Empire country adopted the Enfield system before WWII but LOTS of countries adopted the Mauser one?

I must admit that I haven't ever fired a Enfield and just a few shots with a Kar 98k but I have a pair of nº 4 (one of them is a mint postwar Irish one) and several wartime Mausers in my collection. They are deactivated, so I can't actually fire them, but the Spanish way of applying deactivation until a year ago (the law unfortunately has changed for worst) was just drilling three holes in the barrel and that's all (MG's included) so I can fully operate the bolts of all my rifles, MG's and MP's. The fact is that I strongly dislike the Enfield bolt and love the Mauser one which I find works much smoother than the Enfield. It is true that the Enfield loads 10 cartridges rather than just 5 in the Mauser and the Enfield magazine is detachable while the Mauser one is not, but I think I would prefer going to war with a Mauser rather than an Enfield.

The fact is that for a time British also prefered a Mauser following the Boer War experiences (= accuracy preferred over volume of fire), so they designed a Mauser rifle, the P13/P14. However they reverted to the Enfield after WWI experiences (= volume of fire preferred over accuracy).

[TrailApe]

Is it not just a different way of getting to the same end?

The aim is to supress the enemy until your infantry close with them.

The CW forces tended to use more artillery than anyone else to suppress the enemy - and sometimes I get the impression that the Germans considered this unfair or even cowardly, REAL men shoot at each other and may the best man win.

So use artillery for supression, but remember each CW battalion had a support company, in this support company would be mortars, 6lber AT guns and a carrier platoon - these assets can provide a good amount of firepower - and the bren carriers (which also have piats and 2" mortars) are more robust than jeeps.

Additionally the CW battalion has four rifle companies, so there are more feet on the ground.

And the whilst the MMG were kept at divisional level, they would be allocated out if it was considered necessary for the task on hand, a platoon of four vickers could put out a hell of weight of lead downstream, and because these MMG Battalions were supposed to be 'centres of excellence' in all things MMGish - they should be able to do all of the fancy indirect stuff that your average machine gunner might have been shown, but never practised.

So whilst the individual platoons might seem weak in fire power, remember that the Company had organic fire elements and divisonal fire support that were on hand.

As for the artillery - remember that the western allies had indirect fire support down to an art. Usually for a operation a Company would be allocated at least a battery of 25lbers in direct support - ie they were theirs for the duration of that mission and that would include the OP's from that battery operating with the Company CO.

So back to the aim of suppressing - does it make any difference if the US team have more automatic rifles if the CW have different methods of doing so.

The end result should be the same - whether its from x number of garand magazines fired or x number of 25lb shells landed.

[womble]

And another reason I've heard suggested that the M1 Garand wasn't incorporated into the lend-lease arrangements was that the US was pushing itself just to provide enough for the US forces, and had no additional capacity of the quality and precision needed to produce the semi-auto rifles in enough numbers to make the switch in system worthwhile.

[PzKpfw 1]

The Garand was realy the most successful of the the WW2 semi autos, Both the SvT & Gew 43 suffered from initial problems and went on to perform mainly as sniper rifles. As to FP i disagree the Garand did not contribute signifagntly, as a US RS could put more rounds down range much quicker then a Ger Kar 98k Sqd could & had more rounds per clip as well.

As to lend lease it wasn't just shipping the weapon, you had to ship the ammo as well. And countries were already producing their own MBRs that those troops were trained on as well switching wouldnt have made much sense logisticly. And LL shipping was prioritised fuel, food, trucks etc was more important to say the USSR then say a new Inf wpn.

John brings up a good point about Mons.

Regards, John Waters

[Sgt Joch]

Firearms always involve trade-offs.

The advantage of a semi-auto over a bolt-action is higher ROF.

However, a bolt-action is more accurate at long range because of the closer tolerances. A semi-auto needs a looser fit between bullet and chamber to work properly.

A bolt-action is also more reliable and less prone to jamming since it has a simple mechanism and the soldier pushes the round into the chamber. The semi-auto has a more complex loading mechanism, with more parts that can fail and is inherently more likely to jam, especially if it is dusty, has been dropped in the mud or its owner is not able to clean it as often as he should, all RL issues out in the field.

Armies being a conservative bunch, I presume they all decided to stick with the tried and true bolt-action rifles which had proven themselves in the trench warfare of WW1 and let the Yanks be the Guinea Pigs.

[Fernando]

And another reason I've heard suggested that the M1 Garand wasn't incorporated into the lend-lease arrangements was that the US was pushing itself just to provide enough for the US forces, and had no additional capacity of the quality and precision needed to produce the semi-auto rifles in enough numbers to make the switch in system worthwhile.

WWII Production:

M1 Garand: 4,000,000+

Springfield: 3,519,471

Winchester: 513,582

M1 Carbine: 5,300,000+

Winchester: 828,059

Inland: 2,642,097

Underwood-Elliot Fisher: 545,616

Rock-Ola: 228,500

Quality Hardware Machine Corporation: 359,666

National Poster Meter: 247,160

Saginaw: 293,592 (Saginaw) + 223,620 (Grand Rapids)

International Bussiness Machine Corp. (I.B.M.): 346,500

Standard Products: 247,160

That's a LOT of weapons!!

Usually the problem is not producing the weapons but supplying them with enought ammo.

It is what happened with the MP44. finished MP44's had to be kept on hold until enough ammo was produced to ensure they would get some ammo supply if delivered to the units. It was easier and faster to produce the MP44 than the required amounts of new ammo needed for them.

[Erwin]

IIRC it was also an economy issue. The Brits felt they had better results when a man carefully aimed a shot rather than the spray and pray methods we see elsewhere. But that was when engagement ranges were expected to be many hundreds of meters, not the relatively short ranges we see today. It also required more training - so it's like the Crossbow vs the Longbow.

Reducing weight of ammo was also a factor.

[Sgt Joch]

gunnergoz,

Thanks! Got some grog education from doing this.

I've fired three bolt action rifle types in my day, the .22 LR Marlin we got when I was 12 (considerable plinking and target shooting), the WW II Kar 98K (one outing for functionality testing) we bought for my brother while he was deployed overseas, and a Steyr SSG. None had an action even remotely in the league of the Enfields I showed, and, being a southpaw and shooting left, I needed all the help I could get. There is NO way (long pull, slow action) I could've cranked 5 rounds in 15 seconds from the Kar 98K, which was the direct rival to the Enfield, and while the SSG had a smooth action, in no way was it designed for rapid fire, being a precision tolerance scoped countersniper weapon. The Marlin was anything but quick.

Regards,

John Kettler

I have a postwar Parker-Hale 30-06 built in the 50s. A British Hunting Rifle which follows the Kar 98 design and uses the Mauser Bolt. Its my favorite, utterly reliable, even when a bit dirty, very accurate, but yes, because of the heavy Mauser bolt, it is difficult to fire rapidly since the Bolt has to be inserted with some authority. However, from what I had read, the Mauser Bolt was designed for long term reliability out in the field rather than rapid ROF.

[YankeeDog]

WWII Production:

[cut]

That's a LOT of weapons!!

Usually the problem is not producing the weapons but supplying them with enought ammo.

[cut]

True, but the U.S. put a LOT of men under arms in a pretty short amount of time with the draft, all of whom had to be equipped, trained, and supplied. Even as late as 1944, some U.S. units will still being brought up to current in their equipment and weaponry. With regard to rifles specifically, some U.S. infantry units involved in the Normandy campaign replaced their Springfields with Garands just a few months prior to the landings.

So even assuming for the sake of argument that the Brits would be interested in re-equipping their infantry with Garands (and assuming the ammunition incompatibility issue could somehow be solved), it's difficult to see how the U.S. could have taken on the task of producing enough additional Garands to Lend/Lease any significant amount to Commonwealth forces without taking production away from some other needed weapons system(s) and/or materiel.

Overall, I think this simple logistics fact much renders all other reasons why the Brits may have preferred the SMLE moot; there really wasn't the industrial capacity available for them to even consider a wholesale switch to a new battle rifle. The SMLE was good enough, they had plenty of them, and that was that.

[Splinty]

Also consider that the Brits may not have wanted to develop new tactics and techniques to fit a new type of weapon when what they had worked well enough already.

[Pak40]

I just finished a book called Commando by John Durnford-Slater, considered one of the founding fathers of British Commando tactics in WWII. He was given 2 or 3 Garands by some American Rangers when doing some joint training exercises and was very impressed with the weapon, even took it on some raids.

I'm surprised there weren't at least some experimental British units that took Garands into battle.

[gunnersman]

gunnersman,

Considering the Germans at Mons ran into Enfield equipped Tommies during World War I and thought "ten rounds rapid" was MG fire, I think the answer lies there. This shows just how fast this rifle could fire, and you'll note it's not climbing much off the aimpoint either. Now, imagine the target is not well dispersed individual men, but massed infantry in column!

Ten rounds in 9 seconds (target and range defined in vid)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mons

Morning

The Battle of Mons opened at dawn on 23 August with a German artillery bombardment of the British lines. Understanding that the salient formed by the loop in the canal was the weak-point of the British defences, throughout the day the Germans focused their primary efforts on attacking the British there.[24] At 9:00 a.m., the first German infantry assault began, with the Germans attempting to force their way across the four bridges that crossed the canal at the salient.[25] Four German battalions attacked the Nimy bridge, which was defended by a single company of the 4th Battalion, Royal Fusiliers, as well as a machine gun section led by Lieutenant Maurice Dease. Advancing at first in close column – "parade ground" formation[26] – the Germans made nearly unmissable targets for the well-trained British riflemen (who were evidently making hits at over 1,000 yards (910 m)),[27] and were mown down by rifle, machine gun, and artillery fire.[28] Indeed, so heavy was the British rifle fire throughout the battle that the Germans thought they were facing batteries of machine guns.[29]

24 Hamilton, pp. 13–14.

25 Hamilton, p. 14.

26 Walter Bloem, The Advance from Mons 1914: The Experiences of a German Infantry Officer, p. 39.

27 Bloem, p. 41.

28 Gordon, p. 32.

29 Tuchman, p. 302.

I suspect the British thought they had a more than adequate rifle, of which they had considerable stocks, and really couldn't afford to interrupt war production, presuming they'd even had a good design of their own. I doubt the British would've even considered adopting the M1 Garand, especially since it fired .30 '06, while the Enfield shot .303.

Here's a centerfire newbie on his first outing with an Enfield he's never shot.

Two friends shooting; the guy's friend, who's a lefty like me, got off 5 aimed shots in 15 seconds. Our hero does rather better.

I rest my case.

Regards,

John Kettler

:eek:

WOW! That's some fast shooting...and standing up too! No muzzle rise indeed.

I never realized the bolt could be fired so fast.

Just goes to show you that good training and can improve a weapon.

Interesting input. Mostly as I suspected.

I do recall how the CIA made the Mujahideen use the SMLE for the longest time during the Soviets stint in Afghanistan. Until the US upped its support. It would seem to testify to the quality of the rifle.

[Durruti Column]

Somewhat related to the poster's original comment about the lack of firepower in CW sections; CM2 has stuck strictly to the regulation load-out. However according to "The World War 2 Tommy" by Martin Brayley and Richard Ingram; "By 1944 Sten guns were in plentiful supply and privates might acquire them or be issued with them for some tasks, such as patrols or street fighting..."

Might be wrong but I seem to remember CMBO1 reflected this "in-the-field" situation more.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

Why almost no non-British Empire country adopted the Enfield system before WWII but LOTS of countries adopted the Mauser one?

I must admit that I haven't ever fired a Enfield and just a few shots with a Kar 98k but I have a pair of nº 4 (one of them is a mint postwar Irish one) and several wartime Mausers in my collection. They are deactivated, so I can't actually fire them, but the Spanish way of applying deactivation until a year ago (the law unfortunately has changed for worst) was just drilling three holes in the barrel and that's all (MG's included) so I can fully operate the bolts of all my rifles, MG's and MP's. The fact is that I strongly dislike the Enfield bolt and love the Mauser one which I find works much smoother than the Enfield. It is true that the Enfield loads 10 cartridges rather than just 5 in the Mauser and the Enfield magazine is detachable while the Mauser one is not, but I think I would prefer going to war with a Mauser rather than an Enfield.

The fact is that for a time British also prefered a Mauser following the Boer War experiences (= accuracy preferred over volume of fire), so they designed a Mauser rifle, the P13/P14. However they reverted to the Enfield after WWI experiences (= volume of fire preferred over accuracy).

Fernando, I would reserve judgment until you have actually fired all these weapons and also until you have fired a few rapid practices - the mad minute being a good example. The short Lee Enfield bolt stroke that cocks when closing the bolt beats the long Mauser bolt stroke that cocks when opening - every single time. It is simply impossible to sustain the same rate of accurate fire with a Mauser or Springfield action that is possible with a Lee Enfield.

SLR

[John Kettler]

TrailApe,

So fast did the 25-pounder fire that the Germans really believed it was some sort of automatic cannon. See here under British service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_25_pounder

I believe it was Blackburn, in his THE GUNS OF NORMANDY (?) who presented the story and the quote.

gunnersman,

The CIA did not MAKE the muj use the Enfield, the muj already had the Enfield, as the Russians painfully learned when they invaded, got AFV commanders in particular shot up and often couldn't shoot back effectively, because the AK-47/AK-74 had nothing like its effective range. The Afghanis were excellent rifle shots.

Pak40,

Most interesting, and I had no idea.

Yankee Dog, SLR, Erwin, Fernando,Splinty,Sgt Joch,

Excellent points and well argued. What a great thread!

I realize I was unintentionally ambiguous, when I said "long pull." I now realize that could just as easily have referred to the trigger, but I was directly referring to the length of the travel of the bolt in the Kar98K as compared to the Enfield. Also, I can tell you that working the bolt on the German weapon DID throw the weapon off line. I have no doubt the Mauser was deadly, as the British learned the hard way during the Boer War, but I'd take the Enfield to war myself.

Durruti Column,

Haven't thought about in a very long time, but I believe you are right. I also recall that to get the same effect, American players had to use paratroopers.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Possibly one reason for the Enfield's popularity in Afghanistan might be that for a very long time, including for several years after WW II it was the rifle of the Indian army. So there were lots of them in the region. When India and Pakistan switched to more modern arms, no doubt a lot of those moved north. One consequence of that would have been that armorers (in Pakistan especially a garage enterprise) would have been familiar with the weapon and could readily turn out spare parts. Pretty good bet that they would have been doing a moderate amount of reloading too, so ammo would have been plentiful.

Michael

[LukeFF]

Both the SvT & Gew 43 suffered from initial problems and went on to perform mainly as sniper rifles.

The SVT-40 was a lousy sniper rifle and had been stopped being built as one by 1942. The G43 wasn't highly regarded as a sniper rifle, either.