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

[LongLeftFlank]

Hush now, Herr Feldmarschall. Take your cyanide, there's a nice boy.

[MG TOW]

The Brits may not have had a semi-auto rifle during WW2, Korea too. But they more than made up for it when the FN Self Loading Rifle came out.

[JonS]

Almost completely forgotten after the war back in Britain

Erm, after the war he became CIGS, got a GBE, was ADC to the King, commandant of the Imperial Defence College, got a GCB and GCMG, and a KStJ, and a GCVO, and a KG, and became a Viscount, and was Constable and Governor of Windsor Castle.

If that's "completely forgotten" ...?

[Streety]

Erm, after the war he became CIGS, got a GBE, was ADC to the King, commandant of the Imperial Defence College, got a GCB and GCMG, and a KStJ, and a GCVO, and a KG, and became a Viscount, and was Constable and Governor of Windsor Castle.

If that's "completely forgotten" ...?

JonS, All that was just after the war, and awards he more than deserved from the powers that be, and not about how well the wider British public, or wider World's public, remembered him in the following decades. Compared to Monty, Patton, Rommel, McArthur, or even Stilwell, Bradley, Clark, Model, Brooke, Dowding, etc, etc, how well has Slim been remembered? Its not for nothing that Burma became known as the forgotten war. Even today, with a little more awareness of the Burma campaign than 20-30yrs ago, walk around my home town (where Slim came from) and ask 100 people if they've heard of General Slim? You'd probably need to ask more than 100 before you got a right answer.

The Brits may not have had a semi-auto rifle during WW2, Korea too. But they more than made up for it when the FN Self Loading Rifle came out.

And Gundolf, we did, please note post #42

[JonS]

All that was just after the war

Well, "just" is relative, but he was still getting gongs and awards 20 years after the war.

not about how well the wider British public, or wider World's public, remembered him in the following decades. Compared to Monty, Patton, Rommel, McArthur, or even Stilwell, Bradley, Clark, Model, Brooke, Dowding, etc, etc, how well has Slim been remembered?

We can't remember everyone. On the other hand, he wrote a book, had some books written about him, got a ton of gongs, and has been the subject of a few documentaries. So, not exactly 'forgotten.' But while he was a thoroughly excellent general, leader, and commander, he was never very controversial, which effectively means that he's also not very notable or memorable.

BTW, I'd consider Brooke and Dowding to be almost as transparent as Slim. Model is known only to a relatively few cognoscenti. Bradley is the original Grey Man, who really only stands out from Dempsey because he wrote two(!) autobiographies, and especially because he feebly slammed Monty in one of them. I'd say Slim was at least well known as any of those three. And as for the others, well, yeah; they have a certain brand recognition, but I doubt there'd be measurably more people that could talk about any of them coherently than there are people who recognise Slim's name.

[Bastables]

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.

The regimental and corp system and the associate parochialism in Commonwealth militaries would make Infantry choosing bolt action rifles to allow their "brothers" in the Artillery corp more 25 pdrs a bit counter intuitive.

Remember this is a time where the Tank corp chose a different MG for it's tanks to the rest of the military in the BESA because it suited their needs and bugger everyone else in the army. BESA using the german 7,92 as opposed to the 303 round with all the separate logistical needs that entails.

That Artillery corp was more "scientific" and the Tank corp was filled with New men and mechanics and engineers while the Infantry regts tended to be more traditional in outlook might go some way to explaining the more hide bound impulses of the Infantry.

In the NZ infantry they were still carrying out bayonet drills in the 90s, with a bulpup rifle. . . Thankfully now the only formal training one receives for the vestigial bayonet is the tedious method of minefield crossing. Go to any Battalion line and note how serious the infantry and RSM's and CSM's take drill. Note how walking around parade grounds is taken a bit less seriously in other Corps and how the infantry deride others for lacking good drill.

I maybe incorrect but I'm pretty sure the WWI idea of MMG battalions was done away with during WWII, the NZ Division was notable and out of step in still containing a Machine Gun battalion. MMG/HMG were devolved down to the Support/HQ companies as heavy weapon platoons in rifle battalions along side the mortars platoon.

[TrailApe]

I maybe incorrect but I'm pretty sure the WWI idea of MMG battalions was done away with during WWII, the NZ Division was notable and out of step in still containing a Machine Gun battalion. MMG/HMG were devolved down to the Support/HQ companies as heavy weapon platoons in rifle battalions along side the mortars platoon

Bastables, whilst a lot of the comments on this thread is opinion, the British Army MMG Battalions in WW2 are an actual fact.

The battalion associated with my neck of the woods, the Northumberland Fusiliers, were one such unit, so instead of being hard wired to 50 Inf Div like the DLI and The Green Howards they were attached to any number of divisions and served in France (with the Highland 51st Division), then N Africa, Italy and NW Europe (starting on Sword Beach and working their way through).

The Chesires were a similair battalion.

[Michael Emrys]

Bastables, whilst a lot of the comments on this thread is opinion, the British Army MMG Battalions in WW2 are an actual fact.

The battalion associated with my neck of the woods, the Northumberland Fusiliers, were one such unit...

True, and the RNF seem to turn up in nearly every book I read about the British Army. I'd bet they came up with the original "Kilroy Was Here" graffito.

Michael

[Streety]

Well, "just" is relative, but he was still getting gongs and awards 20 years after the war.

We can't remember everyone. On the other hand, he wrote a book, had some books written about him, got a ton of gongs, and has been the subject of a few documentaries. So, not exactly 'forgotten.' But while he was a thoroughly excellent general, leader, and commander, he was never very controversial, which effectively means that he's also not very notable or memorable.

BTW, I'd consider Brooke and Dowding to be almost as transparent as Slim. Model is known only to a relatively few cognoscenti. Bradley is the original Grey Man, who really only stands out from Dempsey because he wrote two(!) autobiographies, and especially because he feebly slammed Monty in one of them. I'd say Slim was at least well known as any of those three. And as for the others, well, yeah; they have a certain brand recognition, but I doubt there'd be measurably more people that could talk about any of them coherently than there are people who recognise Slim's name.

Oh, do stop trying to split hairs JonS. Military gongs don't equal fame. And if you think Slim is just as well known as Bradley, I'd suggest you come visit Earth from your home near Venus.

I could argue with your posts highly selective points in detail but I must get on with life, so the bottom line is this: considering his relative importance in the war, akin to Monty et al, Slim is relatively far less remembered in the British (and most other countries') public's knowledge of WW2 history. And he gets far less coverage in the various media (be it news, books or TV) with regard to WW2, than most other top-echelon British WW2 leaders.

[JonS]

Do you often get this snarky when folk don't immediately fall in line with your ill considered complaints?

Look, I think Slim is great. I would love him to have more brand recognition. But that he doesn't isn't any fault of The Establishment - he was all but buried under an avalanche of official 'recognition.'

The simple facts are that Slim was:

1) a great leader and commander, but also uncontroversial. (to wit: "Slim was great!" "I agree!" "...." "...." "...." " ... um ..." "... hey, what about Monty?" "What about that conceited prick?" /fight/ )

2) Burma was very much a secondary, tertiary even, theatre, and the Japanese posed no real existential threat to the UK or any of it's citizens. They posed a major threat to the Empire, but not to the UK. The Germans, and even the Italians to a degree, did pose an existential - and very immediate - threat to the UK and it's citizens.

Given that he's just never going to be as pop-culture popular.

Edit: FWIW, a few years ago I did a fairly lengthy and fairly intensive leadership course. There were frequent positive references to - and quotes from - Slim on that course. More so than any other commander, that I recall. He may not be as pop-culture popular, but I'd say his leadership legacy is more enduring than, say, Montgomery's.

[LukeFF]

Thx Luke. My reading on the Svt was that the rifels problems stemmed mainly from troops not knowing how to maintence them properly similar to the problems US forces had with the M16. The remarks were that Elite Soviet troops ie, Soviet Marines had no problems with the 40 & used it to some success till the end of the war. The only thing mentioned was it had less range then the 91/30 could that have been effects of dispursion?, as you say range wasnt it?.

Regards, John Waters

I finally found the info that I was referencing in regard to the SVT-40. It's a good read (as is the whole site):

http://mosinnagant.net/USSR/svt401.asp

Rails ceased to be milled into the receivers of the SVT-40 in October of 1942, and the Tokarev was removed from production as a sniper rifle at this time; however, the SVT was used until the end of the war as a sniper rifle.

The SVT-40 was a competent sniper rifle but was plagued by problems with first shot inaccuracy. It was found in testing that a 10 to 15 cm discrepancy was evident in patterns fired at 100 meters. The "flyer" consistently being the first shot. It was determined that the barrel shifted longitudinally along with the receiver. Further stock work did not alleviate the problem. It was also determined that the scope mount needed to be attached more securely to the rifle. These problems were too severe to continue production until solutions could be found.

(Vic Thomas is a highly-regard source on the history of Russian firearms).

[TrailApe]

He may not be as pop-culture popular, but I'd say his leadership legacy is more enduring than, say, Montgomery's.

That's it in a nutshell.

Those that do a bit of reading will come up against him time and time again whilst those that depend on the media as a primary source will never heard of him. In fact - and I'm not having a go at anybody here - people are ignorant of the fact that the British army did anything out in the east - apart from surrendeingr at Singapore. The news that they took on the Japanese army and gave them a hammering is often a suprise to a lot of people.

[PzKpfw 1]

I finally found the info that I was referencing in regard to the SVT-40. It's a good read (as is the whole site):

http://mosinnagant.net/USSR/svt401.asp

(Vic Thomas is a highly-regard source on the history of Russian firearms).

Thx Luke. I dont have much on it other then what i posted,other then Soviet accounts from Marine snipers, & comments from the Germans & Fins who both used it as a sniper. & all the Marines mention is 'shorter' range', (same as German comments) which the more i see looks like it was a dispertion problem.

Heading to site, have heard of Thomas.

Regards, John Waters

[Duckman]

This has perhaps already been mentioned in the thread, but the main reasons armies were not in a hurry to go semiautomatic were

- huge stocks of bolt action rifles and ammunition.

- lack of tried and tested designs.

- the fact that the machine gun provided most of the squad's firepower anyway, which meant additional bodies were to a large extent used a combined security element, assault force, grenade throwers, and ammo bearers.

- the presence of 1-2 squad members with submachine guns which added substantially to the squad's firepower.

So while semiauto rifles allowed the squad to send a greater volume of accurate fire downrange compared to bolt actions, the fact that the MG already provided a huge (compared to rifles) amount of firepower made this less important. SMGs also filled the roles where the MG was less suitabe, like assault fire.

[Bastables]

Bastables, whilst a lot of the comments on this thread is opinion, the British Army MMG Battalions in WW2 are an actual fact.

The battalion associated with my neck of the woods, the Northumberland Fusiliers, were one such unit, so instead of being hard wired to 50 Inf Div like the DLI and The Green Howards they were attached to any number of divisions and served in France (with the Highland 51st Division), then N Africa, Italy and NW Europe (starting on Sword Beach and working their way through).

The Chesires were a similair battalion.

The so called "MMG battalions" of 1944 were re-orgs of the Support battalions of 1943. MMG battalions contained 3 MMG coy and a heavy mortars coy instead of the mix of MMG, 2cm cannon and heavy mortars coy's of the support battalions. Pure MMG battalions fell out of favour in 42 43 being converted into the aforementioned Support battalions.