Limited next to the country providing most of the logistical support?
Semi-automatics for British army WW2
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Limited next to the country providing most of the logistical support?
That fact has no place in our discussion as the use of the 7.92 mauser BESA in Commonwealth AFVs did not have any appreciable impact on logistics or the ability to supply them with enough ammo
Riflemen are going to use a lot more ammo then AFV machine guns?
Seems a smarter idea would be if the US adopted the .276 Pederson round for the Canadians to adopt it as well. Simplifies logistics.
EDIT
And of course consideration of logistics is rather vital when considering things like new equipment and new ammunition.
Machine guns in the infantry maybe, but I doubt rifles would use up more ammunition.
Standard ammo load for a British Infantryman in WWII was 50 rounds of .303 in 5 round clips and 2 or 4 (depends on role in section) Bren gun magazines.
In British service the armored corps used a separate supply chain then the infantry.
If the British were to swap to a 7.92 Self Loading Rifle pre-war then it would make sense for the BREN to also be deployed in this calibre as it was introduced - in fact this makes more sense than OTL as the gun the Bren was based on the ZB 26 which was also chambered for 7.92 Mauser so arguably would be easier to introduce
The BESA is then deployed for AFV use for all of the reasons it was OTL and Vickers MMGs are also re-chambered for this round using the propriety 225 round metal link belt used by the BESA (Historically several nations had Vickers MMGs in 7.92 Mauser and conversion kits exist today) - admittedly as this is the British we are discussing the MMG / BESA round would be a more powerful 'Z round' than the Rifle /LMG round but hey this is what happened OTL!
Got to be careful not to mixup the MkVII .303 and the MkVIIIz round. The latter will destroy a No1 mk3 in no time. The No 4 with its stronger receiver can handle the hotter Z round but even then it's best not to use it.
Just to go off tangentially,
Why did GB use the BESA in 7.92 from 1938/39 when she could have used the Browning 0.303 that the RAF had already bought from 1934?
Why did GB use the BESA in 7.92 from 1938/39 when she could have used the Browning 0.303 that the RAF had already bought from 1934?
British tanks had been using Vickers MMGs since WW1 but faced with massed expansion of the British army and the number of AFVs multiplying exponentially from 1938 it no longer made economical sense to build a very expensive MMG - the vickers in todays money is over £10K per unit and took a lot of resources and time relative to other guns of its type.
So they bought the rights to the ZB 53 which was a far simpler weapon and much cheaper and lighter to build and knowing that it would take too long to convert it to .303 it was easier and faster to simply change the supply chain to 7.92 Mauser
So it was a question of Cost, resources, and need - AFVs did not need a weapon as good as the Vickers for what it was used for the BESA was good enough - rugged and reliable with a useful ROF and it was relatively easy to build lots of them rather than to further expand Vickers MMG production (which was already expanding to fulfill the need for the infantry as a sustained fire MMG)
As for the Vickers-Browning .303 machine gun (not to be confused with the M1917 or M1919 .30 cal MMGs) - it was designed for very high ROF (1150 RPM) and it was expected to not need to fire long sustained bursts (Spitfire for example carried 300 rounds per gun which gave it about 15 seconds of shootyniss per gun - or 150 rounds per second per aircraft) and could expect to rely on a reasonable cold and fast airflow to cool it down so it could be lighter than a ground based weapon and therefore is not as rugged not in the way it would need to be for ground use - but it was a well made weapon - a Crashed Spitfire was dug up in a bog in Ireland recently and one of the gun's was simply cleaned and serviced by an Irish Army Armorer and it fired first time).
And also like the Vickers MMG it would be expensive to make relative to a weapon like the BESA and every Vickers - Browning weapon made would be used on Fighters and Bombers.
The Farquhar-Hill was a surprisingly good rifle. The fact it held a twenty-round magazine might change British infantry tactics quite a bit because even a single platoon of men armed with the thing are going to be able to put an awful lot of well-aimed lead downrange very fast.
Here's a video of one being fired.
That magazine would have to be changed before it became a practical service rifle. Change the design so it would accept the 20 round S.M.L.E trench magazine and it would be a much more soldier friendly weapon. None of that business of having the feedlips in the receiver instead of on the mag. It would be much easier to carry your spare magazines as well, that bulky drum would be a real pain.
If the Farquhar-Hill had been adopted in 1917, and proved its worth during the 1918 Spring Offensive, I suspect you would likely see an improved "Mark II" version with a box magazine in the 1920's based upon wartime experience.
Of course if we're talking hypothetical scenarios for the Farquhar-Hill you could even have it adopted by the British before the Great War. The Battle of Mons 1914 with every British rifleman putting out a sixty round "Mad Minute" would be a hell of a shock for Von Kluck.
"All the Tommies have machine-guns!"
marathag
Banned
on Feb. 25, 1942, Smith-Corona was granted a contract for M1903 rifle production. While Smith-Corona was in the process of procuring the necessary manufacturing equipment, the M1903A3 rifle superseded the M1903. Accordingly, in May 1942 Smith-Corona’s contract was modified to substitute the M1903A3 for the M1903 rifle. Concurrently, the original contract for 100,000 rifles was increased to 380,000. The first “pilot” batch of 20 Smith-Corona M1903A3 rifles was completed in October 1942, and mass production began in November, a month ahead of Remington’s initial delivery of ’03A3 rifles. Production slowly increased, and by December 1942, Smith-Corona had manufactured 5,540 ’03A3s. As had been the case with Remington, some problems with procurement of rear sights from subcontractors resulted in the delay of initial deliveries. Eventually that problem was resolved and sufficient quantities of the sights were procured, and increasing numbers of ’03A3s began to flow from the Syracuse plant.
...
As the war progressed and production caught up with demand, Smith-Corona’s production contract was cancelled on Feb. 19, 1944, by which time the firm had manufactured 234,580 M1903A3s.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2010/3/12/the-smith-corona-03a3s/
Not bad for a company that never built a firearm before
As a spotty Air Cadet in 1984 I was shooting WWII dated .303, and even latter when the No 4s in store as emergency rifles was sold off as surplus there was still a large stockpile sold off with it.
There were any number of semi auto rifles being developed in the 1930s. The Czechs, the Poles and others. Of the ones that did get into service the troops isued them usually got isdued one to three magazines. Which would have to be reloaded with stripper clips. At the end of the day the M-1 may have been furture ahead with the en block 8 round clip than the other semi autos. At least in terms of sustained fire. Plus the M-1 can be topped off with loose rounds despite what the myths say. Plus I really don't tnink the SMLE is really that much slower than the M-1. Its a question of the rifgles ergonomics
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CCAwAw&usg=AFQjCNF1sHlk2z9QIx28jtvfnGP_UlkifA
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CBwwAQ&usg=AFQjCNF1sHlk2z9QIx28jtvfnGP_UlkifA
The video the Bloke has that is reall amazing is this one
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CCIwBA&usg=AFQjCNF1sHlk2z9QIx28jtvfnGP_UlkifA
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CCAwAw&usg=AFQjCNF1sHlk2z9QIx28jtvfnGP_UlkifA
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CBwwAQ&usg=AFQjCNF1sHlk2z9QIx28jtvfnGP_UlkifA
The video the Bloke has that is reall amazing is this one
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CCIwBA&usg=AFQjCNF1sHlk2z9QIx28jtvfnGP_UlkifA
I know this thread is a few months old, but I would like some confirmation that the ZB 53 was cheaper to make than the Vickers. Could this be true, and is there a source?
I've seen a lot of high res photos of the ZB 53 and it looks like a masterpiece of old school machining; can't imagine how it could be cheaper to make than a simple Maxim type machine gun.
I agree came across these photos and theres a lot of machining work gone into it. https://antikvariat.ru/mmg/3407/60342/#.WfSl7nZryM8 The barrel alone must have taken a lot of work.
WI a Commonwealth country introduced a .303 RIMLESS cartridge?
It would share external dimensions with WW1-vintage .303 ammo, but the rimless base would simplify loading into automatic weapons. This would allow to new round to function with all existing magazines, belts, barrels, etc.
Compare the push-through metal belts used by Germans versus the double extractors used in Vickers-Maxim medium machine guns.
Conversion would be as simple as replacing the bolt.
Since the rim-less cartridge would hold slightly less gun powder, this would provide an opportunity to reduce bullet weight (slightly) to improve muzzle energy, flatten tragectory and improve accuracy.
It would share external dimensions with WW1-vintage .303 ammo, but the rimless base would simplify loading into automatic weapons. This would allow to new round to function with all existing magazines, belts, barrels, etc.
Compare the push-through metal belts used by Germans versus the double extractors used in Vickers-Maxim medium machine guns.
Conversion would be as simple as replacing the bolt.
Since the rim-less cartridge would hold slightly less gun powder, this would provide an opportunity to reduce bullet weight (slightly) to improve muzzle energy, flatten tragectory and improve accuracy.