RetroWARTHINK 011: British WW1 Stupidity: Has a Semi-Automatic Rifle (SAR) in 1915; Didn't Mass-Produce Them
RetroWARTHINK 011: British WW1 Stupidity: Has a Semi-Automatic Rifle (SAR) in 1915; Didn't Mass-Produce Them; Survival in Jeopardy in WW2 1940--Still Didn't Mass Produce Them! vs. Smart Brits Today
The general consensus is that U.K. Tommies were brave & industrious--but mislead by bad commanders in both World Wars or the one World War with a 20-year time-out aka "Armistice".
Too Slow Firing, Bolt-Action Rifles
BIG QUESTION: How is a long, slow Rate-Of-Fire (ROF) SMLE bolt-action rifle with fixed bayonet going to help clear enemy trenches ass u ming you can survive to get there--say following behind a tracked, armored tank acting as a moving shield?
YES, 1 shot upon reaching the enemy trenchline; YES, some rifle-bayonet slashing & stabbing--but is any more firing possible in a confined trench with enemies within your 21-foot Personal Defense Zone (PDZ)?
Note: that American CMH winner, Sgt. Alvin York of the 82nd "All American" Division stood back from a stand-off in order to manually work his M1903 Springfield rifle's bolt to accurately fire/hit enough Germans to force them to surrender.
This will not always be a viable option.
SGT York of the 82nd "All American" Division in WW1 had a M1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle and a .45 ACP and captured German Luger 9mm pistols to wipe-out the Germans in their trenchlines. Though the movie has some errors like actor Cooper firing his rifle twice without cycling the bolt, it accurately shows him and his men crossing "No Man's Land" and producing no enemy suppressive fire resulting in at least half the men being mowed down by German heavy machine guns. When he began rifle picking-off Germans along the trenchlines, he stays at a safe stand-off so he could operate its bolt action. A stripper clip loading is shown once, but once his 5x rifle shots were used up he WENT TO HIS SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOLS in order to fire fast enough to get the charging Germans before they got him.
SGT York WW1 Battle Scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmRRhxo0RHc
Clearly, the Allies needed Semi-Automatic Rifles (SARs) so they could generate "walking fire" to suppress enemies ahead yet the British Army refused to field them, the French created bad SARs and fortunately the Germans toyed with pistols with large magazines. The American BAR arrived at WW1's end and was the game-changer that should have been upgraded with pistol grips, fluted barrels, SCLing, side or top magazine loading etc.
combatreform.org/lightmachineguns.htm
More British Army Stupidity: Had 65-Round Drum for MRS, SAR BEFORE WW1--Yet Refused to Field Them for Crossing No Man's Land Marching Fire
It took 4 years of WW1 Royal Flying Corps (RFC) combat use to convince the British Army?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farquhar%E2%80%93Hill_rifle
The Farquhar-Hill is a long recoil operated semi-automatic rifle with rotary bolt locking. It was 0.303 in (7.7 mm) caliber and fed from a 19-round drum. Magazine variations included a 10-round truncated cone and a 65-round drum. It has a muzzle velocity of 732 m/s (2,400 ft/s) and is sighted to 1,500 yd (1,370 m).
The Farquhar-Hill was first patented in the U.K. in 1908 and in the United States in 1909. The key feature was an intermediate 'action' spring stored recoil energy. Upon discharge, the barrel recoiled while still locked with the bolt, compressing the intermediate spring on recoil. Upon return of the barrel to the forward position, the energy stored in the intermediate spring cycled the bolt back and forth, extracting and ejecting the spent case and feeding a fresh round into the now stationary barrel. The main goal was to achieve smooth and reliable cycling, but the design was very complicated and thus badly suited for a military firearm. By 1911, Farquhar and Hill revised their rifle, changing its source of energy from barrel recoil to more convenient gas operated action. The new weapon also used an intermediate spring as a source of energy for cycling of the bolt with a stationary barrel, simplifying design and making it potentially more accurate and reliable. The design was refined and then tested by British Army on several occasions. This rifle was initially chambered for the new ".303 rimless" round, designed by necking up the 7.65x53mm Belgian Mauser case and loading it with British-issue Mk.VII bullet of .303 caliber. Later on this experimental loading was discarded in favor of the standard issue .303 British ammunition.
After several trials, including troop trials at the Front, and some use by observers in aircraft, in 1918 the Farquhar–Hill rifle was found to be suitable for military use and an official request was issued for procurement of as many as 100,000 Farquhar–Hill rifles. Official nomenclature assigned to the military Farquhar–Hill rifle in August 1918 was "Rifle. .303 inch, Pattern 1918". However, the war ended before production facilities were allocated, and manufacture of Farquhar–Hill rifles was cancelled in 1919.
****
WW1: Shooting the British Farquhar-Hill rifle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXpgJ4JydN4
Today we have some video of a British 1918 Farquhar-Hill rifle at the range. This rifle was an early semiauto design that was accepted by the British Army too late to see service in World War I, but was used as an observer's weapon in two-seater British aircraft. It is chambered for .303 British caliber, and feeds from a 19-round drum.
1930s SMLE to SAR Conversion Kit
Turner Semiauto SMLE Conversion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOgw59_lt7o
So OK, the Farquhar-Hill rifle was too late for WW1--what's the excuse for not having these HAR adaptation kits ready for WW2 in 1939?
What about the Indian Army in 1962 instead of having their asses kicked by CHICOMs with SKS SARs and AKM ARs?
WTFO?
Too Powerful Rifle Cartridges, too?
Below is a good article on the British .256 Copy of Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka--but wrong about Russians following the penis-erection German Stg44. Russia's Fedorov Used 6.5mm Arisaka to Create Avtomat, World's 1st Assault Rifle in 1915
http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/256brit.htm
THE .256 INCH BRITISH: A LOST OPPORTUNITY
By Anthony G. Williams ©
A version of this article originally appeared in Guns Review International, February 1996. Last update 25 September 2010.
****
Surprisingly, in WW1, the British Army had an opportunity to fix its slow-firing, bolt-action SMLE Lee-Enfield rifles by turning them into Semi-Automatic Rifles (SARs) with a simple conversion.
M1915 Howell Automatic Rifle Enfield Conversion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U682yOpNafg
The M1915 Howell Automatic Rifle is a conversion of a standard No1 Mk. III Lee-Enfield rifle into a semiautomatic, through the addition of a gas piston onto the right side of the barrel. Despite its very steampunk appearance, the Howell is actually a quite simple conversion mechanically. The rifle action had not been modified at all, and a curved plate on the end of the gas piston is used to cycle the bolt up, back, forward, and down just as it would be done manually.
The additional metal elements added to the gun are there to prevent the shooter from inadvertently getting their hand or face in the path of the bolt. The crude tubular pistol grip is necessary because the shooter’s hand on the wrist of the stock would normally be in the path of the bolt’s travel. Note that the Parker-Hale bipod on this example is a non-military addition from its time in private ownership.
In addition to these elements, the Howell has been fitted with a 20-round extended magazine to better exploit its rate-of-fire. However, the Howell was made as a semiautomatic rifle only, and not fully automatic. It was offered to the British military circa 1915, but never put into service. Instead, the British would significantly increase production and deployment of Lewis light machine guns. Howell would offer his conversion in basically the same form to the military again at the onset of World War 2--but was again turned down.
Shooting the Howell was remarkably successful - I had expected it to be very malfunction-prone, but in fact it ran almost completely without fault. In retrospect, I would attribute this to the simplicity of its conversion, which made no changes to the feeding and extraction/ejection elements of the SMLE. The gun was a bit awkward to hold, and the offset sights left one with really no cheek weld at all, but recoil was gentle thanks to the gas systems function and added weight. Quite a remarkable gun, and one I am very glad to have been able to shoot.
****
Where was Winston Churchill on this? Too busy commanding a battalion on the front lines in WW1? What about WW2 as PM?
The M1915 Howell Automatic Rifle (HAR) was a simple and effective way to turn a Lee-Enfield SMLE bolt-action rifle into as fast-as-you-can-squeeze-the-trigger, Semi-Automatic Rifle (SAR) that was AVAILABLE WHILE WW1 WAS RAGING.
Why didn't the British Army field these simple conversions to give its infantry a 20-round PRELM and 5-round SCL fed SAR?
Ian M. says U.K. tactics bent on lots of Lewis LMGs and Mills bomb hand grenade throwers to clear trenchlines is BUNK aka BS. Read much of British success with this desperation approach? All of those hand grenadiers and general riflemen carried SMLEs that beyond a bayonet on the end offered ZERO suppressive fire on enemies after you went "over-the-top" and tried to cross the "No Man's Land" from your trench line to the enemy's.
Having instead EVERYONE pouring either LMG bursts or constant single shots at the enemy trench tops would have enabled huge breakthroughs as the troops made it alive to the latter to then clear them out--again helped by being able to fire faster than Huns with Mauser 98K bolt-action rifles plus of course, fixed bayonets. Even the Germans supplied their men with extended magazines for their bolt-action rifles.
Moreover, after WW1, the U.K. should have ditched their rimmed .303 and mass-produced U.S. rimless .30 cal/06 to load better in their weapons as well as get emergency resupply from America if attacked again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bren_light_machine_gun
The Inglis version of the Bren Mk 2 chambered for the 30-06 cartridge and known as the M41 was also manufactured in Formosa in 1952.
****
Some HARs should have been chambered to fire captured German 7.92mm Mauser cartridges like the Turkish Army's SMLEs used.
Every Soldier in the U.K. section aka squad with a HAR would carry beaucoup 20-round PRELMs for their SMLE rifles and 2x 30-round PRELMs to keep their fabulous Bren LMG fed to sustain suppressive fires on the enemy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bren_light_machine_gun
The Bren was a gas-operated weapon, which used the same .303 ammunition as the standard British bolt-action rifle, the Lee–Enfield, firing at a rate of between 480 and 540 rounds per minute (rpm), depending on the model.
The 30-round magazine was in practice usually filled with 27 or 28 rounds to prevent jams and avoid wearing out the magazine spring. Care needed to be taken when loading the magazine to ensure that each round went ahead of the previous round, so that the .303 cartridge rims did not overlap the wrong way, which would cause a jam.
In the British and Commonwealth armies, the Bren was generally issued on a scale of one per rifle section.[8] An infantry battalion also had a "carrier" platoon, equipped with tracked, armored Universal Carriers, each of which carried a Bren gun.[9] Parachute battalions from 1944 had an extra Bren in the AT platoon.[10] The 66-man "Assault Troop" of British Commandos had a nominal establishment of four Bren guns. Realising the need for additional section-level firepower, the British Army endeavoured to issue the Bren in great numbers, with a stated goal of one Bren to every four private Soldiers.[11] The Bren was operated by a two-man crew, sometimes commanded by a Lance Corporal as an infantry section's "gun group", the remainder of the section forming the "rifle group". The gunner or "Number 1" carried and fired the Bren, and a loader or "Number 2" carried extra magazines, a spare barrel and a tool kit.[12] Number 2 helped reload the gun and replace the barrel when it overheated, and spotted targets for Number 1.
Generally, the Bren was fired from the prone position using the attached bipod.[13] On occasion, a Bren gunner would use his weapon on the move supported by a sling, much like an automatic rifle, and from standing or kneeling positions. Using the sling, Australian Soldiers regularly fired the Bren from the hip, for instance in the marching fire tactic, a form of suppressive fire moving forward in assault. A Victoria Cross was awarded to Private Bruce Kingsbury for such use at Isurava, New Guinea, in 1942, during the Australians' fighting retreat from Kokoda.
Each British Soldier's equipment normally included 2x magazines for his section's Bren gun. The large ammunition pouches on the 1937 Pattern Web Equipment were designed around the Bren magazine. Every Soldier would be trained to fire the Bren in case of an emergency, though these Soldiers did not receive a Bren proficiency badge.[citation needed]
****
https://sergeanttombstoneshistory.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/the-bren-light-machine-gun-legendary-reliability/
During trials, it was noted that the top-mounted magazine was faster and easier to change than guns with bottom-mounted magazines, particularly the B.A.R. Additionally, the B.A.R.’s magazine only held 20 rounds, as a larger capacity would impede the use of low cover.
The magazine feed meant that the ammunition was easily distributed throughout the section. The Bren fired the same .303 round as the Lee-Enfield rifles; during lulls in the fighting, the riflemen would reload empty magazines from their bandoliers.
The theoretical rate of fire was around 500 rounds per minute, but of course with magazine changes, the actual rate of fire was much lower, around 120 rounds per minute. Bren gunners were trained to fire 4-5 round bursts in suppressing fire or in engaging an exposed enemy. In the defense, gunners were taught to fire single rounds at suspected targets, not only to conserve ammunition, but also to try to disguise the nature of the gun and avoid becoming the enemy’s primary target.
The Germans used belt-fed, air-cooled machine guns, namely the MG-34 and its successor, the MG-42. These guns, particularly the MG-42, were noted for their high rate-of-fire. They were extremely effective psychological weapons; troops confronted by these guns were terrified by the sound and easily suppressed. But this rate-of-fire came at a cost. The Germans went through a staggering amount of ammunition, all of which had to be carried by the infantrymen. It generally took longer to reload a belt-fed gun than one that was magazine-fed. The German guns also overheated much faster, and it was not as easy to change out their barrels; a thick felt pad was used to protect the Soldiers’ hands while handling the hot barrel. The Germans encountered times when the spare barrel needed to be changed before the original had sufficiently cooled.
The Bren could be operated by a single Soldier, but was more effective when crewed by a gunner and an assistant (The Bren Number 1 and Bren Number 2). The Number 1 carried the gun, 3x magazines (one in the gun, two in webbing pouches), [EDITOR: 90 rounds total] and the spare parts wallet. The Number 2 carried 6x magazines, two in his regular webbing equipment, and four in supplemental pouches. [EDITOR: 180 rounds total] He also carried the spare barrel in its dedicated webbing holdall. Typically, both magazine changes and barrel changes were done by the Number 2.
All infantry tactics revolved around the Bren gun, as it was the section’s primary fire-producer. Defensively, the Bren was put at the section’s flank in order to engage the attacking enemy with defilade fire. While the rest of the section dug straight 2-man slit trenches, the Bren was placed at the apex of an angled trench, which gave better access for the Number 2 to change magazines and barrels.
In the attack, the section would break into two groups: the Bren group consisted of the assistant section leader, the Bren Number 1 and Number 2; the section leader and the riflemen were the assault group. The groups would then engage in fire-and-movement, one group providing covering fire while the other group advanced. The goal was to get the Bren into a good position to engage the enemy and either destroy them or suppress them so the assault group could take the position.
The Bren was also an integral part of anti-tank tactics. While the .303 round would not penetrate a tank’s armor, it could force the tank commander and any other crew to stay inside the turret, reducing their visibility and effectiveness. Bren gunners were also taught to fire at a tank’s viewing ports and prisms; if this was not possible, they were to engage any supporting infantry. All of these tactics made it easier for an anti-tank team to move up on the vehicle’s flank with a Boyes anti-tank rifle or a PIAT (projector, infantry, anti-tank).
The Bren had an attached bipod, which could be folded up when mounted on a vehicle or tripod, or to allow the gunner to get into deeper cover. It also had a sling; the gun could be carried with the sling over the shoulder taking most of the weight, and the left hand steadying the gun. This way, the gun could be fired from the hip while on the move. The carry handle could be rotated into the “assault position”, although it was more common to hold the gun under the folded-up bipod when firing from the hip.
Originally, Bren gunners were trained to carry the gun by the carry handle. However, “light machine gun” was a comparative term; it was only light compared to water-cooled machine guns. The Bren Mark I weighed 23 pounds unloaded, well over double the Lee-Enfield rifle, and the Bren Mark II weighed slightly more. Each full magazine weighed just short of three pounds. When not in direct contact with the enemy, Bren gunners tended to march with the gun balanced on the shoulder, with a hand on the barrel to steady the gun.
The Bren continued service after World War II; its reliability was again needed from the bitter cold of Korea to the jungles of Malaya. When Britain adopted the NATO-standard 7.62mm cartridge in the late 1950’s, the Bren gun was converted to the new round and redesignated as the L4 L.M.G. While new barrels and magazines were made, existing guns were rechambered to 7.62mm. The new magazines were straight, not curved, and the muzzle cone was replaced with a “birdcage”-style flash hider. If needed, the L4 was able to use the same magazine as the L1A1 self-loading rifle. The change from a rimmed to rimless cartridge and nearly straight magazine improved feeding considerably, and allowed use of 20-round magazines from the 7.62 mm L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle. The 30-round magazine from the L4 also fitted the L1A1 rifle, but the magazine spring was not always strong enough to provide enough upward pressure to feed rounds correctly, this being remedied by stretching the magazine springs.
****
Why couldn't ALL U.K. infantry section Soldiers instead carry 30-round PRELMs that would fire in either their HALs, SMLEs and Brens?
Later on, after WW2, 7.62mm x 51mm NATO-firing Bren L4A4 LMGs could load/shoot 20-round FN FAL rifle PRELMs and their "L1A1" rifle could conversely, shoot L4A4 LMG, 30-round PRELMs.
Then there'd be no Riflemen/AR disconnect like the American M1 Garand shooting .30/06 in 8-round en blocs that cannot load into M1918 Browning Automatic Rifles (BARs) that cannot load by 8-round en blocs and instead needs 20-round PRELMs.
The French Field a SAR in Combat in WW1--but Screw-up Inter-changeability with SCL Bolt-Action Rifles
While the UK was screwing up the SAR for its Tommies, the French actually fielded several thousands of FAM 1917 RSCs to their troops--but didn't insure the SCL situation was efficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusil_Automatique_Mod%C3%A8le_1917
The adoption of the Modèle 1917 can be traced to early attempts by the French Army to replace its [tube magazine-fed, 8-shot] Lebel rifles with a more advanced semi-automatic design in the years before the outbreak of the First World War. In 1913, a semi-automatic rifle was selected to be adopted as a replacement for the Lebels and Berthiers in the army's inventory. In 1910, the army tentatively adopted the semi-automatic long recoil-operated Meunier rifle as a replacement for the Lebel rifle. Considerable delays were experienced in the final choice for the ammunition, which ended up being a powerful rimless proprietary 7×56.95mm round. Only 1,013 Meunier rifles had been manufactured by 1916 and about 300 were sent for field trials in the trenches. They were well-received, but the requirement for the special ammunition was a major handicap.
The M1917 RSC (Ribeyrolles, Sutter and Chauchat - the weapon's designers) was formally adopted in May 1916. The M1917 was being mass-produced by April 1917, and was less expensive to manufacture than the Meunier rifle since it used standard Lebel rifle components, notably the barrel, stock, handguard, barrel bands and trigger guard. Above all, it was chambered for standard 8mm Lebel ammunition, which was loaded in special five-round en-bloc clips. The Mle 1917 RSC was gas-operated, using a long-stroke piston with a rotating bolt; the gas port was located underneath the barrel near the muzzle as in the later American M1 Garand rifle. The Mle 1917 was widely distributed among French infantrymen during 1918, but the troops did not like it as they found it too heavy, too long and too difficult to maintain in the trenches. The weak point of the rifle was the very small internal diameter of the gas port, which tended to foul with repeated firings, thus leading to weaker and weaker bolt cycling with prolonged use. The gas port required frequent cleaning out (every 100 rounds or so) which could be performed after removing the large brass screw under the front end of the barrel. Furthermore, the special magazine for the Mle 1917 was not particularly strong.
Model 1918 RSC
Following as a substantial improvement, the Mle 1918 RSC was adopted in 1918 as a rifle planned to replace all other rifles beginning in 1919. Production began in November 1918 just as the war was ending. No Mle 1918 RSC rifles are known to have been used in WWI. The Mle 1918 was significantly shorter and lighter than the Mle 1917 RSC and corrected basically all of the Mle 1917 RSC drawbacks. One of the primary complaints from French Soldiers regarding the Mle 1917 RSC was its excessive length at 1330mm (52"). The Mle 1918 RSC was shortened to an overall length of 1100mm (43.3").
Receiver modified to accept Mle 1916 Berthier clips. This is perhaps, the most significant change as it allowed for ammo sharing between Soldiers carrying the Mle 1918 and the bolt-action Berthier rifles. Despite both rifles having been developed at the same time with the backing of the French Army and Government, the design teams do not appear to have made any attempt at commonality of feeding device between the two designs. This meant that, although they shared the same 8mm Lebel cartridge, they had completely different 5 round charger clips which created logistical and tactical difficulties. The French Army had issued out the Mle 1917 across the force, intending to give 16 rifles to each line Infantry Company to be issued to marksmen in those units which were otherwise armed with either Berthiers or older Lebels (in which case replacement by Berthiers was intended). The ammunition for both rifles was issued already loaded onto charger clips which were intended to be disposable. As such, the Army supply system was required to issue 8mm Lebel ammunition in both units of issue, complicating supply. Although an Mle 1917 carrying Soldier could save his disposable clips and reload them from downloaded Berthier clips or vice versa, loaded clips could not be shared as needed on the battlefield between Soldiers armed with the two different rifles. The modification to the inside of the receiver involved removing material at the back of the clip channel and adding it at the front. It is possible, to file down the back of a Mle 1917 charger channel to accept a Berthier charger clip, but the clip will not be supported at the front leading to movement of the cartridges inside the channel which negatively impacts reliability. The Mle 1918 modification to the Mle 1917 receiver supports Berthier clips both in the front and back, allowing for reliable use, but does not fully support the charger clip as the Mle 1917 does with its original charger.
Firing tests had also shown that the Mle 1918 RSC was more accurate than both the Lebel rifle and the Mle 1917 RSC. The Mle 1918 RSC's production did not begin until November 1918 at MAS (Manufacture d'Armes de Saint-Etienne). Only ~4,000 were made, most of them in 1919, and many were tested in combat during the Rif War of 1921–26 in Morocco, where "they gave complete satisfaction".
****
"March or Die" French Foreign Legion in the 1920s Rif War
Gene Hackman's French Major William Sherman Foster in "March or Die". Back-story is he was kicked out of the U.S. ARMY's West Point and instead served with distinction in the French Foreign Legion in WW1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2YYbwxPRVo
Ian of FORGOTTEN WEAPONS shows the 20-round Chauchat LMG magazine could be loaded into Berthier bolt-action rifles so one wonders if they could fit into the M1917 or M1918 RSCs, too?
Berthier Carbine with Chauchat Magazine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suy5e9UUq2I
After WW2, the Need for a SAR Became Moot with the Assault Rifle Mentality
Even though the U.K. could have had a SAR via the HAR from 1915 onwards; every Tommy carrying 20- and 30-round PRELMs good to feed both SARs and LMGs; and this could have been in standardized American .30 cal/06 rimless cartridges to speed emergency resupply and on-going war effort logistics, the British Army entered WW2 at best parity if not out-gunned by bolt-action rifles--the same low ROF mistake as from WW1 against enemies clamoring for SARs. The desperation Thompson .45 ACP and Sten 9mm SMGs to get high ROF, close-range firepower in the British Commandos and BIG ARMY was mimicked by the German MP38/40 and Russian Ppsh 41s also firing weak pistol cartridges. The British Sten SMGs could cleverly feed from captured enemy MP38/40s--so at least some folks were thinking ahead when making their weapons introduction move. Like Goldie Locks & the 3 Bears, the rifle cartridges were too large and the pistol/SMG cartridges were too small--giving re-birth to the intermediate cartridge-shooting, "Assault Rifle" which the American M2 Carbine was actually the 1st if you think the Russian Fedorov Avtomat shooting 6.5mm Arisaka was still too big. If not, the Russians fielded the 1st Assault Rifles into combat in WW1.
The 7.62mm x 51mm NATO Rifle & LMG Has Smartly & Rightly Returned to the U.K. Army
We told you so!
combatreform.org/lightmachineguns.htm
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2011/3/18/britains-l129a1/
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have brought back what some thought were obsolete combat tactics. Until recently, the emphasis on small arms has been up close and personal, with practical ranges being less than 300 meters. For that role, the 5.56x45 mm NATO cartridge has been more than sufficient. The topography of the deserts and mountains of Iraq and Afghanistan, however, have reintroduced long-range combat, and NATO troops need rifles to effectively engage targets at ranges from 400 to 1,000 meters. While the U.S. Army has turned to the M14-based Enhanced Battle Rifle and Designated Marksman Rifle, the British opted for a different solution.
In December 2009 the British Ministry of Defense issued an urgent operational requirement for a 7.62x51 mm NATO semi-automatic rifle that could effectively eliminate targets from 500 to 800 meters. The gun was to perform the role of a sharpshooter rifle, as well as have the ability to be used in close-quarters battle conditions, including rapid tactical fire. This was of particular importance to British forces in Afghanistan. In the British Army, sharpshooters are one step down from full-fledged snipers.
Although the Accuracy International L96 bolt-action is suitable for a sniper, the sharpshooter may end up in situations where more rapid firepower is needed. The British wanted a modern rifle that was a significant improvement over the FN-FAL-based Self-Loading Rifle issued to British troops prior to the adoption of the L85A1 bullpup in 5.56x45 mm NATO. The competition was fierce, and many of the top modern riflemakers competed, including Heckler & Koch (H&K), Fabrique Nationale (FN), Knights Armament Co. (KAC), Sabre Defence, Oberland Arms and Lewis Machine & Tool (LM&T). The final two entrants in the trial were the LM&T LM7 and H&K 417.
The testing protocol was different from the U.S. Army and marine requisites. American rifles, such as the Knights Mk 11 and the M110 SASS (both in the SR-25 family), were developed around match-grade ammunition (M118 and M118LR), which restricts interchangeability with standard M80 ball. The British wanted their rifle to fire standard Radway Green 7.62x51 mm NATO L2A2 ball ammunition and maintain consistent hits on a man-size target at 800 meters. There were three main areas in which the rifles were scored: the company’s response to the solicitation; the company’s technical and manufacturing capabilities; and the operators’ assessments. In the end, the best rifle had to be made by a reputable company with the ability to mass-produce military-grade rifles. The design selected as the L129A1 was the LM&T LM7 7.62x51 mm NATO MWS (Modular Weapon System).
Lewis Machine & Tool is owned by Karl Lewis, and the ISO 9001:2008 certified company has its manufacturing facility in Milan, Ill. The company has extensive experience as a government contractor and OEM manufacturer for many top defense contractors in the United States making 5.56 mm rifles and M203 grenade launchers. LM&T took the industry by storm with the introduction of the first Monolithic Rail Platform upper receiver (MRP). Not only were the upper and fore-end machined as one piece, but the barrel could be removed, and any length barrel could be installed in different calibers, bringing the Stoner-designed system to the next level.
The LM&T L129A1 is based on the AR-10 design with direct-gas operation and a multi-lug rotating bolt. The U.S. Ordnance Corps tossed the AR-10 on the scrap heap in the late 1950s, only to see it reintroduced by Gene Stoner and Reed Knight in the early 1990s. Sadly, Stoner would not live to see the adoption of his AR-10 —as the SR-25-based Mk 11 and M110 SASS—by America’s most elite Soldiers a half century after its initial rejection.
The LM&T’s upper receiver is made from a single 7075 T6 aluminum forging, and there are quad STANAG-4694 rails allowing accessory attachment. All the sides are solid, ensuring zero retention on the rails, which are numerically indexed. There are also five mounting points on the upper receiver for quick-detachable sling swivels.
The heart of the LM&T MWS is the quick-change barrel that can be swapped out at the user level. By removing two bolts, the free-floating barrel can be removed and replaced with one of a different length or even a different caliber.
****
The British Army now also uses a belt-fed, 7.62mm x 51mm NATO FN MAG quasi-LMG in its infantry sections after the dismal performance of the anemic 5.56mm x 45mm NATO cartridge in open terrain desert/mountainous Iraq/Afghanistan combats. The more portable, PRELM-fed, L4A4 should also be returned to service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_(military_unit)
The "Rifle Section" of a World War II Infantry Battalion was generally formed of 10 men; a Corporal as the section commander, a Lance Corporal as the section 2IC, and eight privates. The Corporal variously carried a Lee-Enfield rifle, a Thompson [.45 ACP] submachine gun, or a [9mm] Sten gun depending on the year of the war, one private would be the section gunner with a Bren gun, and all other section members were armed with Lee–Enfield rifles. The section was divided into a rifle group consisting of the section commander and six riflemen, and a gun group consisting of the section 2IC, the section gunner and a Bren No. 2 carrying a spare barrel and additional ammunition for the Bren gun. Three sections together formed a platoon, with two being forward sections and the third being a reserve.[6][7]
With the switch from .303 Inch to 7.62x51mm NATO in the 1950s, the typical British infantry section was armed with and organised around the [belt-fed] L7A1/A2 7.62mm general purpose machine gun (GPMG). The section was reduced to eight men but retained the rifle group/gun group organisation: the rifle group consisted of the section commander (Corporal) with an L1A1 self-loading rifle (SLR), the Anti-Tank gunner with an L14A1 84mm [Carl Gustav] anti-tank gun and a L2A3 9mm submachine gun, the Anti-Tank No. 2 with an L1A1 SLR and additional 84mm rounds, and two riflemen with L1A1 SLRs, while the gun group consisted of the section 2IC (Lance Corporal) with an L1A1 SLR, the section gunner with the GPMG, and the gun No. 2 with an L1A1 SLR, a spare GPMG barrel, and additional 7.62mm linked ammunition.
Both World War II and Cold War section tactics were designed with a view to bringing the section machine gun to bear on the enemy and providing support to it; once the gun group had suppressed the enemy ("winning the firefight"), the rifle group would assault and destroy the enemy position with the gun group providing fire until the last safe moment.
Some units operating in Afghanistan carried on using the L7A2 GPMG as the section machine gun or included it as an additional weapon on the scale of one per fireteam; in the case of the latter, this meant that only two L85A2s (at least one of which was fitted with the [40mm] UGL) were carried per section.[13]
The [5.56mm] L86A2 and L110A3 began to be removed from service in 2019, leaving the [7.62mm] L129A1 and L7A2 as the standard section designated marksman rifle and standard section machine gun respectively.[15] With section commanders now also being able to tailor equipment formations as needed instead of having to deploy in a pre-set lineup, the current British infantry section is as follows:[16]
Corporal (Charlie team commander and overall section commander) armed with an L85A3 5.56mm rifle
Lance Corporal (Delta team commander) armed with an L85A3 5.56mm rifle
Four Riflemen armed with L85A3 5.56mm rifles, two of which will normally be equipped with an L123A3 40mm UGL.
Gunner armed with an L7A2 7.62x51mm general purpose machine gun (at the section commander's discretion, the gunner can be re-roled as an additional rifleman with an L85A3 5.56mm rifle if needed)
Designated Marksman armed with an L129A1 7.62×51mm sharpshooter rifle
****
How Much Ammo Did Soldiers Carry & How?
http://phillosoph.blogspot.com/2017/02/soldiers-load-how-much-ammo-to-carry.html
QUOTE:
The typical Soldier in the American Civil War carried a cartridge box with 40 rounds ready for immediate use.
Yesterday, I was reading about World War One trench raiding. Troops did not wear 'equipment' (webbing) for these raids but the men carrying a rifle and bayonet carried 50 rounds. Other men carried [10x] ten grenades instead. 'Marching load' for British Soldiers was 90 to 110 rounds.
An account of a World War Two British platoon, had each rifleman with 50 rounds and two to four magazines for the Bren gun. How much ammunition was carried in practice may have been more.
German Soldiers of the same period are noted for being frugal with their rifle ammunition and letting the machine-guns handle the bulk of the offensive and defensive fire. I’ve encountered 90 rounds as the ammunition allocation for a Mauser rifle. The issue belt pouches only hold 60 rounds as twelve 5-round chargers so the remainder may have been in the pack if 90 rounds were carried.
The Japanese Soldier carried 120 rounds. Twelve 5-round chargers were distributed between two frontal belt pouches and a further 60 rounds was in a 'reserve' pouch at the back.
The American Soldier in World War Two was issued with an ammunition belt with ten pouches, each for an 8-round Garand clip. [80 total] In his famous study of the Soldier’s load SLA Marshall claims that Soldiers generally carry more ammunition than is needed and suggests six clips (48 rounds) be carried instead.
If we look a little later in history the American Soldier in Vietnam was instructed to carry 330 rounds for his M16. Other sources say 14 magazines. Bear in mind a loaded 30-round [5.56mm] magazine weighs around a pound each. 880 [belted, 7.62mm x 51mm NATO] rounds was allocated for each M60 [medium machine gun] so the riflemen probably helped carry some of this too.
The British Soldier with a 7.62mm SLR was expected to carry five 20-round magazines and a 50-round bandolier or belt for the MG. With the switch to 5.56mm weapons and a rifle capable of automatic fire came a suggested load of 330 rounds: six 30-round magazines and 150 rounds in a bandolier.
A few posts back we looked at the Viet Cong chest rigs. If a wearer decides to carry six AK magazines he has around 180 rounds. An AKM 30-round magazine weighs about 1.8lbs so six loaded magazines weighs 10.8lbs. The equivalent load for an SKS would be eighteen 10-round chargers. Each of these weighs 0.4lb loaded so 180 rounds would weigh only 7.2lbs.
Several of the examples given earlier carried their ammunition in chargers (aka stripper-clips). The Garand took ammunition in true clips. Contrary to what TV shows, video games and some supposedly expert gun writers will tell you, a clip is not a magazine, it is a device that fits inside a magazine. A charger/ stripper-clip remains outside a magazine and unloads its rounds into the magazine.
Carrying ammunition in chargers rather than magazines constitutes a considerable saving in weight. Unfortunately there are not that many modern semi-automatic rifles that can be loaded directly with chargers. The SKS and M14 are probably the only ones you are ever likely to encounter. Canadian FALs could have their magazines topped up with chargers while the magazine was in place. When Canada switched to the AR-15 this capability was not continued, probably because of the carrying handle. Many modern AR-15 weapons no longer have the carrying handle and a replacement receiver top that can take chargers may be possible.
****
U.K. Infantry Section SMLE Bolt-Action Rifle & Light Machine Gun Feeding in WW2
8x Soldiers each carrying 10x 5-round stripper clips for his SMLE rifle, 2x 30-round Bren LMG PRELMs = 110 rounds per man
400 rounds in stripper-clips
480 rounds in PRELMs
1x Number 1 Bren LMGer = 90 rounds in PRELMs
1x Number 2 Bren AG = 180 rounds in PRELMs
__________________________________
SUB-TOTALS
400 rounds in stripper-clips
750 x .303 cal rounds in 21x 30-round magazines
TOTAL
1150x rounds of .303 cal
If however, the SMLE was a HAR aka a SAR...
He can Maximum Rounds Start (MRS) firefights with 20 or 30 rounds as fast-as-he-can-squeeze-the-trigger compared to just 10 rounds with 10x bolt cyclings.
The 20-round PRELMs that feed the HARs can also feed the LMG; the 30-round PRELMs that feed the LMG can also feed the HARs. Inter-changeability not achieved until after WW2 with the L1A1 (FN FAL) SAR & L4A4 Bren LMG. The UK L1A1 should have had SCL capabilities like the Canadian Army's FN FAL SARs because this is how ammunition comes in resupply.
U.K. Infantry Section HAR SAR & Light Machine Gun Feeding in WW2
8x Soldiers each carrying 10x 5-round stripper clips and 2x 20-round PRELMs for his HAR SAR for MRS, 4x 30-round Bren LMG PRELMs = 210 rounds per man
400 rounds in stripper-clips
1280 rounds in PRELMs
1x Number 1 Bren LMGer = 90 rounds in PRELMs
1x Number 2 Bren AG = 180 rounds in PRELMs
__________________________________
SUB-TOTALS
400 rounds in stripper-clips
1550 x .303 cal rounds in 16x 20-round and 21x 30-round magazines
TOTAL
1950x rounds of .303 cal rimmed--or better yet--.30 cal/06 rimless
Summary/Conclusion
The U.K. Army should have adopted the HAR in WW1; it could have turned the tide of battle and helped end the war with less friendly casualties by riflemen generating their own suppressive firepower instead of doing nothing when crossing No Man's Land.
With the HAR, the U.K. Army would have fared better in WW2 from the outset; although out-gunned by German Long-Range Battle (LRB) in the form of Stuka precision-strike, dive bombers and artillery landing on them before they could fire a shot back in anger; but after closing with the enemy to under 1, 000 meters and continually less & less, the former's semi-automatic rifle fire would have out-ranged German MP38/40 SMGs and out-ROFed their bolt-action Mauser 98K rifles. A high ROF British Expeditionary Force (BEF) might have held-off the blitzkrieg sooner and farther away from Dunkirk so more troops could have been sea-rescued.
In later combats, the SAR & Bren LMG-equipped U.K. Army section would have combat over-matched the MG34/42 belt-fed LMG-dependent German squad because once their zipzipzip gun was taken out they would be left with slow ROF bolt-action rifles. This constant collapse of LMG firepower lead the Germans to urgently field the G43 SAR, FG42 SELFAR and the Stg44 AR--but not in enough numbers and too late to turn the tide of battle back into their favor.
Bolt-action rifles especially in 12.7mm aka .50 caliber shooting Raufoss High Explosive (HE) rounds to explode car/truck bombs are still needed for long-range, stand-off "sniping". The bullpup bolt-action below to shorten the weapon's length has merit.
Semper Airborne!
The general consensus is that U.K. Tommies were brave & industrious--but mislead by bad commanders in both World Wars or the one World War with a 20-year time-out aka "Armistice".
Too Slow Firing, Bolt-Action Rifles
YES, 1 shot upon reaching the enemy trenchline; YES, some rifle-bayonet slashing & stabbing--but is any more firing possible in a confined trench with enemies within your 21-foot Personal Defense Zone (PDZ)?
Note: that American CMH winner, Sgt. Alvin York of the 82nd "All American" Division stood back from a stand-off in order to manually work his M1903 Springfield rifle's bolt to accurately fire/hit enough Germans to force them to surrender.
This will not always be a viable option.
SGT York of the 82nd "All American" Division in WW1 had a M1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle and a .45 ACP and captured German Luger 9mm pistols to wipe-out the Germans in their trenchlines. Though the movie has some errors like actor Cooper firing his rifle twice without cycling the bolt, it accurately shows him and his men crossing "No Man's Land" and producing no enemy suppressive fire resulting in at least half the men being mowed down by German heavy machine guns. When he began rifle picking-off Germans along the trenchlines, he stays at a safe stand-off so he could operate its bolt action. A stripper clip loading is shown once, but once his 5x rifle shots were used up he WENT TO HIS SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOLS in order to fire fast enough to get the charging Germans before they got him.
SGT York WW1 Battle Scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmRRhxo0RHc
Clearly, the Allies needed Semi-Automatic Rifles (SARs) so they could generate "walking fire" to suppress enemies ahead yet the British Army refused to field them, the French created bad SARs and fortunately the Germans toyed with pistols with large magazines. The American BAR arrived at WW1's end and was the game-changer that should have been upgraded with pistol grips, fluted barrels, SCLing, side or top magazine loading etc.
combatreform.org/lightmachineguns.htm
More British Army Stupidity: Had 65-Round Drum for MRS, SAR BEFORE WW1--Yet Refused to Field Them for Crossing No Man's Land Marching Fire
It took 4 years of WW1 Royal Flying Corps (RFC) combat use to convince the British Army?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farquhar%E2%80%93Hill_rifle
The Farquhar-Hill is a long recoil operated semi-automatic rifle with rotary bolt locking. It was 0.303 in (7.7 mm) caliber and fed from a 19-round drum. Magazine variations included a 10-round truncated cone and a 65-round drum. It has a muzzle velocity of 732 m/s (2,400 ft/s) and is sighted to 1,500 yd (1,370 m).
The Farquhar-Hill was first patented in the U.K. in 1908 and in the United States in 1909. The key feature was an intermediate 'action' spring stored recoil energy. Upon discharge, the barrel recoiled while still locked with the bolt, compressing the intermediate spring on recoil. Upon return of the barrel to the forward position, the energy stored in the intermediate spring cycled the bolt back and forth, extracting and ejecting the spent case and feeding a fresh round into the now stationary barrel. The main goal was to achieve smooth and reliable cycling, but the design was very complicated and thus badly suited for a military firearm. By 1911, Farquhar and Hill revised their rifle, changing its source of energy from barrel recoil to more convenient gas operated action. The new weapon also used an intermediate spring as a source of energy for cycling of the bolt with a stationary barrel, simplifying design and making it potentially more accurate and reliable. The design was refined and then tested by British Army on several occasions. This rifle was initially chambered for the new ".303 rimless" round, designed by necking up the 7.65x53mm Belgian Mauser case and loading it with British-issue Mk.VII bullet of .303 caliber. Later on this experimental loading was discarded in favor of the standard issue .303 British ammunition.
After several trials, including troop trials at the Front, and some use by observers in aircraft, in 1918 the Farquhar–Hill rifle was found to be suitable for military use and an official request was issued for procurement of as many as 100,000 Farquhar–Hill rifles. Official nomenclature assigned to the military Farquhar–Hill rifle in August 1918 was "Rifle. .303 inch, Pattern 1918". However, the war ended before production facilities were allocated, and manufacture of Farquhar–Hill rifles was cancelled in 1919.
****
WW1: Shooting the British Farquhar-Hill rifle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXpgJ4JydN4
Today we have some video of a British 1918 Farquhar-Hill rifle at the range. This rifle was an early semiauto design that was accepted by the British Army too late to see service in World War I, but was used as an observer's weapon in two-seater British aircraft. It is chambered for .303 British caliber, and feeds from a 19-round drum.
1930s SMLE to SAR Conversion Kit
Turner Semiauto SMLE Conversion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOgw59_lt7o
So OK, the Farquhar-Hill rifle was too late for WW1--what's the excuse for not having these HAR adaptation kits ready for WW2 in 1939?
What about the Indian Army in 1962 instead of having their asses kicked by CHICOMs with SKS SARs and AKM ARs?
WTFO?
Too Powerful Rifle Cartridges, too?
http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/256brit.htm
THE .256 INCH BRITISH: A LOST OPPORTUNITY
By Anthony G. Williams ©
A version of this article originally appeared in Guns Review International, February 1996. Last update 25 September 2010.
****
Surprisingly, in WW1, the British Army had an opportunity to fix its slow-firing, bolt-action SMLE Lee-Enfield rifles by turning them into Semi-Automatic Rifles (SARs) with a simple conversion.
M1915 Howell Automatic Rifle Enfield Conversion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U682yOpNafg
The M1915 Howell Automatic Rifle is a conversion of a standard No1 Mk. III Lee-Enfield rifle into a semiautomatic, through the addition of a gas piston onto the right side of the barrel. Despite its very steampunk appearance, the Howell is actually a quite simple conversion mechanically. The rifle action had not been modified at all, and a curved plate on the end of the gas piston is used to cycle the bolt up, back, forward, and down just as it would be done manually.
The additional metal elements added to the gun are there to prevent the shooter from inadvertently getting their hand or face in the path of the bolt. The crude tubular pistol grip is necessary because the shooter’s hand on the wrist of the stock would normally be in the path of the bolt’s travel. Note that the Parker-Hale bipod on this example is a non-military addition from its time in private ownership.
In addition to these elements, the Howell has been fitted with a 20-round extended magazine to better exploit its rate-of-fire. However, the Howell was made as a semiautomatic rifle only, and not fully automatic. It was offered to the British military circa 1915, but never put into service. Instead, the British would significantly increase production and deployment of Lewis light machine guns. Howell would offer his conversion in basically the same form to the military again at the onset of World War 2--but was again turned down.
Shooting the Howell was remarkably successful - I had expected it to be very malfunction-prone, but in fact it ran almost completely without fault. In retrospect, I would attribute this to the simplicity of its conversion, which made no changes to the feeding and extraction/ejection elements of the SMLE. The gun was a bit awkward to hold, and the offset sights left one with really no cheek weld at all, but recoil was gentle thanks to the gas systems function and added weight. Quite a remarkable gun, and one I am very glad to have been able to shoot.
****
Where was Winston Churchill on this? Too busy commanding a battalion on the front lines in WW1? What about WW2 as PM?
The M1915 Howell Automatic Rifle (HAR) was a simple and effective way to turn a Lee-Enfield SMLE bolt-action rifle into as fast-as-you-can-squeeze-the-trigger, Semi-Automatic Rifle (SAR) that was AVAILABLE WHILE WW1 WAS RAGING.
Why didn't the British Army field these simple conversions to give its infantry a 20-round PRELM and 5-round SCL fed SAR?
20-Round Extended Lee-Enfield Magazine being SCLed
Ian M. says U.K. tactics bent on lots of Lewis LMGs and Mills bomb hand grenade throwers to clear trenchlines is BUNK aka BS. Read much of British success with this desperation approach? All of those hand grenadiers and general riflemen carried SMLEs that beyond a bayonet on the end offered ZERO suppressive fire on enemies after you went "over-the-top" and tried to cross the "No Man's Land" from your trench line to the enemy's.
Having instead EVERYONE pouring either LMG bursts or constant single shots at the enemy trench tops would have enabled huge breakthroughs as the troops made it alive to the latter to then clear them out--again helped by being able to fire faster than Huns with Mauser 98K bolt-action rifles plus of course, fixed bayonets. Even the Germans supplied their men with extended magazines for their bolt-action rifles.
German Stormtroop Weaponry
Moreover, after WW1, the U.K. should have ditched their rimmed .303 and mass-produced U.S. rimless .30 cal/06 to load better in their weapons as well as get emergency resupply from America if attacked again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bren_light_machine_gun
The Inglis version of the Bren Mk 2 chambered for the 30-06 cartridge and known as the M41 was also manufactured in Formosa in 1952.
****
Some HARs should have been chambered to fire captured German 7.92mm Mauser cartridges like the Turkish Army's SMLEs used.
Every Soldier in the U.K. section aka squad with a HAR would carry beaucoup 20-round PRELMs for their SMLE rifles and 2x 30-round PRELMs to keep their fabulous Bren LMG fed to sustain suppressive fires on the enemy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bren_light_machine_gun
The Bren was a gas-operated weapon, which used the same .303 ammunition as the standard British bolt-action rifle, the Lee–Enfield, firing at a rate of between 480 and 540 rounds per minute (rpm), depending on the model.
The 30-round magazine was in practice usually filled with 27 or 28 rounds to prevent jams and avoid wearing out the magazine spring. Care needed to be taken when loading the magazine to ensure that each round went ahead of the previous round, so that the .303 cartridge rims did not overlap the wrong way, which would cause a jam.
Bren LMG Universal Carriers: Better Tracked, Cross-Country, Mobility Means than Today's Crap Wheeled Trucks
In the British and Commonwealth armies, the Bren was generally issued on a scale of one per rifle section.[8] An infantry battalion also had a "carrier" platoon, equipped with tracked, armored Universal Carriers, each of which carried a Bren gun.[9] Parachute battalions from 1944 had an extra Bren in the AT platoon.[10] The 66-man "Assault Troop" of British Commandos had a nominal establishment of four Bren guns. Realising the need for additional section-level firepower, the British Army endeavoured to issue the Bren in great numbers, with a stated goal of one Bren to every four private Soldiers.[11] The Bren was operated by a two-man crew, sometimes commanded by a Lance Corporal as an infantry section's "gun group", the remainder of the section forming the "rifle group". The gunner or "Number 1" carried and fired the Bren, and a loader or "Number 2" carried extra magazines, a spare barrel and a tool kit.[12] Number 2 helped reload the gun and replace the barrel when it overheated, and spotted targets for Number 1.
Generally, the Bren was fired from the prone position using the attached bipod.[13] On occasion, a Bren gunner would use his weapon on the move supported by a sling, much like an automatic rifle, and from standing or kneeling positions. Using the sling, Australian Soldiers regularly fired the Bren from the hip, for instance in the marching fire tactic, a form of suppressive fire moving forward in assault. A Victoria Cross was awarded to Private Bruce Kingsbury for such use at Isurava, New Guinea, in 1942, during the Australians' fighting retreat from Kokoda.
Each British Soldier's equipment normally included 2x magazines for his section's Bren gun. The large ammunition pouches on the 1937 Pattern Web Equipment were designed around the Bren magazine. Every Soldier would be trained to fire the Bren in case of an emergency, though these Soldiers did not receive a Bren proficiency badge.[citation needed]
****
https://sergeanttombstoneshistory.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/the-bren-light-machine-gun-legendary-reliability/
During trials, it was noted that the top-mounted magazine was faster and easier to change than guns with bottom-mounted magazines, particularly the B.A.R. Additionally, the B.A.R.’s magazine only held 20 rounds, as a larger capacity would impede the use of low cover.
The magazine feed meant that the ammunition was easily distributed throughout the section. The Bren fired the same .303 round as the Lee-Enfield rifles; during lulls in the fighting, the riflemen would reload empty magazines from their bandoliers.
The theoretical rate of fire was around 500 rounds per minute, but of course with magazine changes, the actual rate of fire was much lower, around 120 rounds per minute. Bren gunners were trained to fire 4-5 round bursts in suppressing fire or in engaging an exposed enemy. In the defense, gunners were taught to fire single rounds at suspected targets, not only to conserve ammunition, but also to try to disguise the nature of the gun and avoid becoming the enemy’s primary target.
The Germans used belt-fed, air-cooled machine guns, namely the MG-34 and its successor, the MG-42. These guns, particularly the MG-42, were noted for their high rate-of-fire. They were extremely effective psychological weapons; troops confronted by these guns were terrified by the sound and easily suppressed. But this rate-of-fire came at a cost. The Germans went through a staggering amount of ammunition, all of which had to be carried by the infantrymen. It generally took longer to reload a belt-fed gun than one that was magazine-fed. The German guns also overheated much faster, and it was not as easy to change out their barrels; a thick felt pad was used to protect the Soldiers’ hands while handling the hot barrel. The Germans encountered times when the spare barrel needed to be changed before the original had sufficiently cooled.
The Bren could be operated by a single Soldier, but was more effective when crewed by a gunner and an assistant (The Bren Number 1 and Bren Number 2). The Number 1 carried the gun, 3x magazines (one in the gun, two in webbing pouches), [EDITOR: 90 rounds total] and the spare parts wallet. The Number 2 carried 6x magazines, two in his regular webbing equipment, and four in supplemental pouches. [EDITOR: 180 rounds total] He also carried the spare barrel in its dedicated webbing holdall. Typically, both magazine changes and barrel changes were done by the Number 2.
All infantry tactics revolved around the Bren gun, as it was the section’s primary fire-producer. Defensively, the Bren was put at the section’s flank in order to engage the attacking enemy with defilade fire. While the rest of the section dug straight 2-man slit trenches, the Bren was placed at the apex of an angled trench, which gave better access for the Number 2 to change magazines and barrels.
In the attack, the section would break into two groups: the Bren group consisted of the assistant section leader, the Bren Number 1 and Number 2; the section leader and the riflemen were the assault group. The groups would then engage in fire-and-movement, one group providing covering fire while the other group advanced. The goal was to get the Bren into a good position to engage the enemy and either destroy them or suppress them so the assault group could take the position.
The Bren was also an integral part of anti-tank tactics. While the .303 round would not penetrate a tank’s armor, it could force the tank commander and any other crew to stay inside the turret, reducing their visibility and effectiveness. Bren gunners were also taught to fire at a tank’s viewing ports and prisms; if this was not possible, they were to engage any supporting infantry. All of these tactics made it easier for an anti-tank team to move up on the vehicle’s flank with a Boyes anti-tank rifle or a PIAT (projector, infantry, anti-tank).
The Bren had an attached bipod, which could be folded up when mounted on a vehicle or tripod, or to allow the gunner to get into deeper cover. It also had a sling; the gun could be carried with the sling over the shoulder taking most of the weight, and the left hand steadying the gun. This way, the gun could be fired from the hip while on the move. The carry handle could be rotated into the “assault position”, although it was more common to hold the gun under the folded-up bipod when firing from the hip.
Originally, Bren gunners were trained to carry the gun by the carry handle. However, “light machine gun” was a comparative term; it was only light compared to water-cooled machine guns. The Bren Mark I weighed 23 pounds unloaded, well over double the Lee-Enfield rifle, and the Bren Mark II weighed slightly more. Each full magazine weighed just short of three pounds. When not in direct contact with the enemy, Bren gunners tended to march with the gun balanced on the shoulder, with a hand on the barrel to steady the gun.
The Bren continued service after World War II; its reliability was again needed from the bitter cold of Korea to the jungles of Malaya. When Britain adopted the NATO-standard 7.62mm cartridge in the late 1950’s, the Bren gun was converted to the new round and redesignated as the L4 L.M.G. While new barrels and magazines were made, existing guns were rechambered to 7.62mm. The new magazines were straight, not curved, and the muzzle cone was replaced with a “birdcage”-style flash hider. If needed, the L4 was able to use the same magazine as the L1A1 self-loading rifle. The change from a rimmed to rimless cartridge and nearly straight magazine improved feeding considerably, and allowed use of 20-round magazines from the 7.62 mm L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle. The 30-round magazine from the L4 also fitted the L1A1 rifle, but the magazine spring was not always strong enough to provide enough upward pressure to feed rounds correctly, this being remedied by stretching the magazine springs.
****
Why couldn't ALL U.K. infantry section Soldiers instead carry 30-round PRELMs that would fire in either their HALs, SMLEs and Brens?
Later on, after WW2, 7.62mm x 51mm NATO-firing Bren L4A4 LMGs could load/shoot 20-round FN FAL rifle PRELMs and their "L1A1" rifle could conversely, shoot L4A4 LMG, 30-round PRELMs.
Then there'd be no Riflemen/AR disconnect like the American M1 Garand shooting .30/06 in 8-round en blocs that cannot load into M1918 Browning Automatic Rifles (BARs) that cannot load by 8-round en blocs and instead needs 20-round PRELMs.
The French Field a SAR in Combat in WW1--but Screw-up Inter-changeability with SCL Bolt-Action Rifles
While the UK was screwing up the SAR for its Tommies, the French actually fielded several thousands of FAM 1917 RSCs to their troops--but didn't insure the SCL situation was efficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusil_Automatique_Mod%C3%A8le_1917
The adoption of the Modèle 1917 can be traced to early attempts by the French Army to replace its [tube magazine-fed, 8-shot] Lebel rifles with a more advanced semi-automatic design in the years before the outbreak of the First World War. In 1913, a semi-automatic rifle was selected to be adopted as a replacement for the Lebels and Berthiers in the army's inventory. In 1910, the army tentatively adopted the semi-automatic long recoil-operated Meunier rifle as a replacement for the Lebel rifle. Considerable delays were experienced in the final choice for the ammunition, which ended up being a powerful rimless proprietary 7×56.95mm round. Only 1,013 Meunier rifles had been manufactured by 1916 and about 300 were sent for field trials in the trenches. They were well-received, but the requirement for the special ammunition was a major handicap.
The M1917 RSC (Ribeyrolles, Sutter and Chauchat - the weapon's designers) was formally adopted in May 1916. The M1917 was being mass-produced by April 1917, and was less expensive to manufacture than the Meunier rifle since it used standard Lebel rifle components, notably the barrel, stock, handguard, barrel bands and trigger guard. Above all, it was chambered for standard 8mm Lebel ammunition, which was loaded in special five-round en-bloc clips. The Mle 1917 RSC was gas-operated, using a long-stroke piston with a rotating bolt; the gas port was located underneath the barrel near the muzzle as in the later American M1 Garand rifle. The Mle 1917 was widely distributed among French infantrymen during 1918, but the troops did not like it as they found it too heavy, too long and too difficult to maintain in the trenches. The weak point of the rifle was the very small internal diameter of the gas port, which tended to foul with repeated firings, thus leading to weaker and weaker bolt cycling with prolonged use. The gas port required frequent cleaning out (every 100 rounds or so) which could be performed after removing the large brass screw under the front end of the barrel. Furthermore, the special magazine for the Mle 1917 was not particularly strong.
Model 1918 RSC
Following as a substantial improvement, the Mle 1918 RSC was adopted in 1918 as a rifle planned to replace all other rifles beginning in 1919. Production began in November 1918 just as the war was ending. No Mle 1918 RSC rifles are known to have been used in WWI. The Mle 1918 was significantly shorter and lighter than the Mle 1917 RSC and corrected basically all of the Mle 1917 RSC drawbacks. One of the primary complaints from French Soldiers regarding the Mle 1917 RSC was its excessive length at 1330mm (52"). The Mle 1918 RSC was shortened to an overall length of 1100mm (43.3").
Receiver modified to accept Mle 1916 Berthier clips. This is perhaps, the most significant change as it allowed for ammo sharing between Soldiers carrying the Mle 1918 and the bolt-action Berthier rifles. Despite both rifles having been developed at the same time with the backing of the French Army and Government, the design teams do not appear to have made any attempt at commonality of feeding device between the two designs. This meant that, although they shared the same 8mm Lebel cartridge, they had completely different 5 round charger clips which created logistical and tactical difficulties. The French Army had issued out the Mle 1917 across the force, intending to give 16 rifles to each line Infantry Company to be issued to marksmen in those units which were otherwise armed with either Berthiers or older Lebels (in which case replacement by Berthiers was intended). The ammunition for both rifles was issued already loaded onto charger clips which were intended to be disposable. As such, the Army supply system was required to issue 8mm Lebel ammunition in both units of issue, complicating supply. Although an Mle 1917 carrying Soldier could save his disposable clips and reload them from downloaded Berthier clips or vice versa, loaded clips could not be shared as needed on the battlefield between Soldiers armed with the two different rifles. The modification to the inside of the receiver involved removing material at the back of the clip channel and adding it at the front. It is possible, to file down the back of a Mle 1917 charger channel to accept a Berthier charger clip, but the clip will not be supported at the front leading to movement of the cartridges inside the channel which negatively impacts reliability. The Mle 1918 modification to the Mle 1917 receiver supports Berthier clips both in the front and back, allowing for reliable use, but does not fully support the charger clip as the Mle 1917 does with its original charger.
Firing tests had also shown that the Mle 1918 RSC was more accurate than both the Lebel rifle and the Mle 1917 RSC. The Mle 1918 RSC's production did not begin until November 1918 at MAS (Manufacture d'Armes de Saint-Etienne). Only ~4,000 were made, most of them in 1919, and many were tested in combat during the Rif War of 1921–26 in Morocco, where "they gave complete satisfaction".
****
"March or Die" French Foreign Legion in the 1920s Rif War
Gene Hackman's French Major William Sherman Foster in "March or Die". Back-story is he was kicked out of the U.S. ARMY's West Point and instead served with distinction in the French Foreign Legion in WW1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2YYbwxPRVo
Ian of FORGOTTEN WEAPONS shows the 20-round Chauchat LMG magazine could be loaded into Berthier bolt-action rifles so one wonders if they could fit into the M1917 or M1918 RSCs, too?
Berthier Carbine with Chauchat Magazine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suy5e9UUq2I
After WW2, the Need for a SAR Became Moot with the Assault Rifle Mentality
Top-Load Bren LMG 30-Round Magazine
Even though the U.K. could have had a SAR via the HAR from 1915 onwards; every Tommy carrying 20- and 30-round PRELMs good to feed both SARs and LMGs; and this could have been in standardized American .30 cal/06 rimless cartridges to speed emergency resupply and on-going war effort logistics, the British Army entered WW2 at best parity if not out-gunned by bolt-action rifles--the same low ROF mistake as from WW1 against enemies clamoring for SARs. The desperation Thompson .45 ACP and Sten 9mm SMGs to get high ROF, close-range firepower in the British Commandos and BIG ARMY was mimicked by the German MP38/40 and Russian Ppsh 41s also firing weak pistol cartridges. The British Sten SMGs could cleverly feed from captured enemy MP38/40s--so at least some folks were thinking ahead when making their weapons introduction move. Like Goldie Locks & the 3 Bears, the rifle cartridges were too large and the pistol/SMG cartridges were too small--giving re-birth to the intermediate cartridge-shooting, "Assault Rifle" which the American M2 Carbine was actually the 1st if you think the Russian Fedorov Avtomat shooting 6.5mm Arisaka was still too big. If not, the Russians fielded the 1st Assault Rifles into combat in WW1.
The 7.62mm x 51mm NATO Rifle & LMG Has Smartly & Rightly Returned to the U.K. Army
We told you so!
combatreform.org/lightmachineguns.htm
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2011/3/18/britains-l129a1/
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have brought back what some thought were obsolete combat tactics. Until recently, the emphasis on small arms has been up close and personal, with practical ranges being less than 300 meters. For that role, the 5.56x45 mm NATO cartridge has been more than sufficient. The topography of the deserts and mountains of Iraq and Afghanistan, however, have reintroduced long-range combat, and NATO troops need rifles to effectively engage targets at ranges from 400 to 1,000 meters. While the U.S. Army has turned to the M14-based Enhanced Battle Rifle and Designated Marksman Rifle, the British opted for a different solution.
In December 2009 the British Ministry of Defense issued an urgent operational requirement for a 7.62x51 mm NATO semi-automatic rifle that could effectively eliminate targets from 500 to 800 meters. The gun was to perform the role of a sharpshooter rifle, as well as have the ability to be used in close-quarters battle conditions, including rapid tactical fire. This was of particular importance to British forces in Afghanistan. In the British Army, sharpshooters are one step down from full-fledged snipers.
Although the Accuracy International L96 bolt-action is suitable for a sniper, the sharpshooter may end up in situations where more rapid firepower is needed. The British wanted a modern rifle that was a significant improvement over the FN-FAL-based Self-Loading Rifle issued to British troops prior to the adoption of the L85A1 bullpup in 5.56x45 mm NATO. The competition was fierce, and many of the top modern riflemakers competed, including Heckler & Koch (H&K), Fabrique Nationale (FN), Knights Armament Co. (KAC), Sabre Defence, Oberland Arms and Lewis Machine & Tool (LM&T). The final two entrants in the trial were the LM&T LM7 and H&K 417.
The testing protocol was different from the U.S. Army and marine requisites. American rifles, such as the Knights Mk 11 and the M110 SASS (both in the SR-25 family), were developed around match-grade ammunition (M118 and M118LR), which restricts interchangeability with standard M80 ball. The British wanted their rifle to fire standard Radway Green 7.62x51 mm NATO L2A2 ball ammunition and maintain consistent hits on a man-size target at 800 meters. There were three main areas in which the rifles were scored: the company’s response to the solicitation; the company’s technical and manufacturing capabilities; and the operators’ assessments. In the end, the best rifle had to be made by a reputable company with the ability to mass-produce military-grade rifles. The design selected as the L129A1 was the LM&T LM7 7.62x51 mm NATO MWS (Modular Weapon System).
Lewis Machine & Tool is owned by Karl Lewis, and the ISO 9001:2008 certified company has its manufacturing facility in Milan, Ill. The company has extensive experience as a government contractor and OEM manufacturer for many top defense contractors in the United States making 5.56 mm rifles and M203 grenade launchers. LM&T took the industry by storm with the introduction of the first Monolithic Rail Platform upper receiver (MRP). Not only were the upper and fore-end machined as one piece, but the barrel could be removed, and any length barrel could be installed in different calibers, bringing the Stoner-designed system to the next level.
The LM&T L129A1 is based on the AR-10 design with direct-gas operation and a multi-lug rotating bolt. The U.S. Ordnance Corps tossed the AR-10 on the scrap heap in the late 1950s, only to see it reintroduced by Gene Stoner and Reed Knight in the early 1990s. Sadly, Stoner would not live to see the adoption of his AR-10 —as the SR-25-based Mk 11 and M110 SASS—by America’s most elite Soldiers a half century after its initial rejection.
The LM&T’s upper receiver is made from a single 7075 T6 aluminum forging, and there are quad STANAG-4694 rails allowing accessory attachment. All the sides are solid, ensuring zero retention on the rails, which are numerically indexed. There are also five mounting points on the upper receiver for quick-detachable sling swivels.
The heart of the LM&T MWS is the quick-change barrel that can be swapped out at the user level. By removing two bolts, the free-floating barrel can be removed and replaced with one of a different length or even a different caliber.
****
The British Army now also uses a belt-fed, 7.62mm x 51mm NATO FN MAG quasi-LMG in its infantry sections after the dismal performance of the anemic 5.56mm x 45mm NATO cartridge in open terrain desert/mountainous Iraq/Afghanistan combats. The more portable, PRELM-fed, L4A4 should also be returned to service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_(military_unit)
The "Rifle Section" of a World War II Infantry Battalion was generally formed of 10 men; a Corporal as the section commander, a Lance Corporal as the section 2IC, and eight privates. The Corporal variously carried a Lee-Enfield rifle, a Thompson [.45 ACP] submachine gun, or a [9mm] Sten gun depending on the year of the war, one private would be the section gunner with a Bren gun, and all other section members were armed with Lee–Enfield rifles. The section was divided into a rifle group consisting of the section commander and six riflemen, and a gun group consisting of the section 2IC, the section gunner and a Bren No. 2 carrying a spare barrel and additional ammunition for the Bren gun. Three sections together formed a platoon, with two being forward sections and the third being a reserve.[6][7]
With the switch from .303 Inch to 7.62x51mm NATO in the 1950s, the typical British infantry section was armed with and organised around the [belt-fed] L7A1/A2 7.62mm general purpose machine gun (GPMG). The section was reduced to eight men but retained the rifle group/gun group organisation: the rifle group consisted of the section commander (Corporal) with an L1A1 self-loading rifle (SLR), the Anti-Tank gunner with an L14A1 84mm [Carl Gustav] anti-tank gun and a L2A3 9mm submachine gun, the Anti-Tank No. 2 with an L1A1 SLR and additional 84mm rounds, and two riflemen with L1A1 SLRs, while the gun group consisted of the section 2IC (Lance Corporal) with an L1A1 SLR, the section gunner with the GPMG, and the gun No. 2 with an L1A1 SLR, a spare GPMG barrel, and additional 7.62mm linked ammunition.
Both World War II and Cold War section tactics were designed with a view to bringing the section machine gun to bear on the enemy and providing support to it; once the gun group had suppressed the enemy ("winning the firefight"), the rifle group would assault and destroy the enemy position with the gun group providing fire until the last safe moment.
Some units operating in Afghanistan carried on using the L7A2 GPMG as the section machine gun or included it as an additional weapon on the scale of one per fireteam; in the case of the latter, this meant that only two L85A2s (at least one of which was fitted with the [40mm] UGL) were carried per section.[13]
The [5.56mm] L86A2 and L110A3 began to be removed from service in 2019, leaving the [7.62mm] L129A1 and L7A2 as the standard section designated marksman rifle and standard section machine gun respectively.[15] With section commanders now also being able to tailor equipment formations as needed instead of having to deploy in a pre-set lineup, the current British infantry section is as follows:[16]
Corporal (Charlie team commander and overall section commander) armed with an L85A3 5.56mm rifle
Lance Corporal (Delta team commander) armed with an L85A3 5.56mm rifle
Four Riflemen armed with L85A3 5.56mm rifles, two of which will normally be equipped with an L123A3 40mm UGL.
Gunner armed with an L7A2 7.62x51mm general purpose machine gun (at the section commander's discretion, the gunner can be re-roled as an additional rifleman with an L85A3 5.56mm rifle if needed)
Designated Marksman armed with an L129A1 7.62×51mm sharpshooter rifle
****
How Much Ammo Did Soldiers Carry & How?
http://phillosoph.blogspot.com/2017/02/soldiers-load-how-much-ammo-to-carry.html
QUOTE:
The typical Soldier in the American Civil War carried a cartridge box with 40 rounds ready for immediate use.
Yesterday, I was reading about World War One trench raiding. Troops did not wear 'equipment' (webbing) for these raids but the men carrying a rifle and bayonet carried 50 rounds. Other men carried [10x] ten grenades instead. 'Marching load' for British Soldiers was 90 to 110 rounds.
An account of a World War Two British platoon, had each rifleman with 50 rounds and two to four magazines for the Bren gun. How much ammunition was carried in practice may have been more.
German Soldiers of the same period are noted for being frugal with their rifle ammunition and letting the machine-guns handle the bulk of the offensive and defensive fire. I’ve encountered 90 rounds as the ammunition allocation for a Mauser rifle. The issue belt pouches only hold 60 rounds as twelve 5-round chargers so the remainder may have been in the pack if 90 rounds were carried.
The Japanese Soldier carried 120 rounds. Twelve 5-round chargers were distributed between two frontal belt pouches and a further 60 rounds was in a 'reserve' pouch at the back.
The American Soldier in World War Two was issued with an ammunition belt with ten pouches, each for an 8-round Garand clip. [80 total] In his famous study of the Soldier’s load SLA Marshall claims that Soldiers generally carry more ammunition than is needed and suggests six clips (48 rounds) be carried instead.
If we look a little later in history the American Soldier in Vietnam was instructed to carry 330 rounds for his M16. Other sources say 14 magazines. Bear in mind a loaded 30-round [5.56mm] magazine weighs around a pound each. 880 [belted, 7.62mm x 51mm NATO] rounds was allocated for each M60 [medium machine gun] so the riflemen probably helped carry some of this too.
The British Soldier with a 7.62mm SLR was expected to carry five 20-round magazines and a 50-round bandolier or belt for the MG. With the switch to 5.56mm weapons and a rifle capable of automatic fire came a suggested load of 330 rounds: six 30-round magazines and 150 rounds in a bandolier.
Nice Chest ehh, Rig!
A few posts back we looked at the Viet Cong chest rigs. If a wearer decides to carry six AK magazines he has around 180 rounds. An AKM 30-round magazine weighs about 1.8lbs so six loaded magazines weighs 10.8lbs. The equivalent load for an SKS would be eighteen 10-round chargers. Each of these weighs 0.4lb loaded so 180 rounds would weigh only 7.2lbs.
Several of the examples given earlier carried their ammunition in chargers (aka stripper-clips). The Garand took ammunition in true clips. Contrary to what TV shows, video games and some supposedly expert gun writers will tell you, a clip is not a magazine, it is a device that fits inside a magazine. A charger/ stripper-clip remains outside a magazine and unloads its rounds into the magazine.
Carrying ammunition in chargers rather than magazines constitutes a considerable saving in weight. Unfortunately there are not that many modern semi-automatic rifles that can be loaded directly with chargers. The SKS and M14 are probably the only ones you are ever likely to encounter. Canadian FALs could have their magazines topped up with chargers while the magazine was in place. When Canada switched to the AR-15 this capability was not continued, probably because of the carrying handle. Many modern AR-15 weapons no longer have the carrying handle and a replacement receiver top that can take chargers may be possible.
****
U.K. Infantry Section SMLE Bolt-Action Rifle & Light Machine Gun Feeding in WW2
8x Soldiers each carrying 10x 5-round stripper clips for his SMLE rifle, 2x 30-round Bren LMG PRELMs = 110 rounds per man
400 rounds in stripper-clips
480 rounds in PRELMs
1x Number 1 Bren LMGer = 90 rounds in PRELMs
1x Number 2 Bren AG = 180 rounds in PRELMs
__________________________________
SUB-TOTALS
400 rounds in stripper-clips
750 x .303 cal rounds in 21x 30-round magazines
TOTAL
1150x rounds of .303 cal
If however, the SMLE was a HAR aka a SAR...
He can Maximum Rounds Start (MRS) firefights with 20 or 30 rounds as fast-as-he-can-squeeze-the-trigger compared to just 10 rounds with 10x bolt cyclings.
The 20-round PRELMs that feed the HARs can also feed the LMG; the 30-round PRELMs that feed the LMG can also feed the HARs. Inter-changeability not achieved until after WW2 with the L1A1 (FN FAL) SAR & L4A4 Bren LMG. The UK L1A1 should have had SCL capabilities like the Canadian Army's FN FAL SARs because this is how ammunition comes in resupply.
U.K. Infantry Section HAR SAR & Light Machine Gun Feeding in WW2
8x Soldiers each carrying 10x 5-round stripper clips and 2x 20-round PRELMs for his HAR SAR for MRS, 4x 30-round Bren LMG PRELMs = 210 rounds per man
400 rounds in stripper-clips
1280 rounds in PRELMs
1x Number 1 Bren LMGer = 90 rounds in PRELMs
1x Number 2 Bren AG = 180 rounds in PRELMs
__________________________________
SUB-TOTALS
400 rounds in stripper-clips
1550 x .303 cal rounds in 16x 20-round and 21x 30-round magazines
TOTAL
1950x rounds of .303 cal rimmed--or better yet--.30 cal/06 rimless
Summary/Conclusion
HAR: Lost War-Winner
The U.K. Army should have adopted the HAR in WW1; it could have turned the tide of battle and helped end the war with less friendly casualties by riflemen generating their own suppressive firepower instead of doing nothing when crossing No Man's Land.
With the HAR, the U.K. Army would have fared better in WW2 from the outset; although out-gunned by German Long-Range Battle (LRB) in the form of Stuka precision-strike, dive bombers and artillery landing on them before they could fire a shot back in anger; but after closing with the enemy to under 1, 000 meters and continually less & less, the former's semi-automatic rifle fire would have out-ranged German MP38/40 SMGs and out-ROFed their bolt-action Mauser 98K rifles. A high ROF British Expeditionary Force (BEF) might have held-off the blitzkrieg sooner and farther away from Dunkirk so more troops could have been sea-rescued.
In later combats, the SAR & Bren LMG-equipped U.K. Army section would have combat over-matched the MG34/42 belt-fed LMG-dependent German squad because once their zipzipzip gun was taken out they would be left with slow ROF bolt-action rifles. This constant collapse of LMG firepower lead the Germans to urgently field the G43 SAR, FG42 SELFAR and the Stg44 AR--but not in enough numbers and too late to turn the tide of battle back into their favor.
Bolt-action rifles especially in 12.7mm aka .50 caliber shooting Raufoss High Explosive (HE) rounds to explode car/truck bombs are still needed for long-range, stand-off "sniping". The bullpup bolt-action below to shorten the weapon's length has merit.
Semper Airborne!
Comments
Post a Comment