British Army

Just to start a discussion, here's a proposition.

The British Army was so unsuccessful in the early part of the 2nd World War as much through poor equipment as poor generalship.

I'd support that by saying that with the exception of the excellent 25 pounder gun virtually all the kit from rifles to tanks was either outdated or unreliable. The SMLE was excellent but no bolt action rifle could provide the fire volume needed. The 30 round mag on the Bren could never compare with the MG34 let alone the 42. Until the Comet of 44 / 45 Britain NEVER produced a halfway decent tank.

What do other members think?

 

Originally posted by Chris C@Aug 5 2005, 01:44 PM
Just to start a discussion, here's a proposition.

The British Army was so unsuccessful in the early part of the 2nd World War as much through poor equipment as poor generalship.

I'd support that by saying that with the exception of the excellent 25 pounder gun virtually all the kit from rifles to tanks was either outdated or unreliable. The SMLE was excellent but no bolt action rifle could provide the fire volume needed. The 30 round mag on the Bren could never compare with the MG34 let alone the 42. Until the Comet of 44 / 45 Britain NEVER produced a halfway decent tank.

What do other members think?
[post=37296]Quoted post[/post]

Well, John Weeks, a British army expert on weapons, said the fastest way to get punched out at a British Army reunion was to trash the SMLE or the Bren gun, but the British did have problems with their technology, pretty much until the US lend-Lease kicked in.

The British hand-produced a lot of their equipment, so many spare parts had to be hammered, chiseled, or sawn into position. The British were astonished that American tanks and equipment arrived properly packed and weatherproofed, and spare parts slipped in easily.

Certainly the British army fuel can was not as good as its German rival, which is why the British and Americans adopted the familiar "Jerrican," which had far less spillage.

 

Originally posted by Chris C@Aug 5 2005, 05:44 PM
Just to start a discussion, here's a proposition.

The British Army was so unsuccessful in the early part of the 2nd World War as much through poor equipment as poor generalship.

I'd support that by saying that with the exception of the excellent 25 pounder gun virtually all the kit from rifles to tanks was either outdated or unreliable. The SMLE was excellent but no bolt action rifle could provide the fire volume needed. The 30 round mag on the Bren could never compare with the MG34 let alone the 42. Until the Comet of 44 / 45 Britain NEVER produced a halfway decent tank.

What do other members think?
[post=37296]Quoted post[/post]


The Armed forces had spent many of the interwar year hampered by the fact that the defence budget was based upon Winston Churchill’s rule, that there would be no war for ten years. Thus the kit that they forces had, were the ones that they could afford. But they did get was at times a lot better than most.

Many of the individual pieces of kit that the forces had, were what people now term “Force Multipliers” Radar was coming into development, ASDIC was being put on ships, the BREN gun carriers because multi purpose vehicles.

One of the best recommendations of the SMLE was the quote from an USMC Company comander who said after the retreat from the Chosin Reservoir, "if we had the Lee-Enfield, then there would have been no retreat".

What also must be remembered is that many pieces of American kit was designed based upon british experiences, the Sherman,m the P51D etc

 

From Max Hastings' Overlord:

A specialist who was intimately concerned in the British tank design programme from its earliest days, Colonel George Macleod Ross, suggested after the war that the war office made a fatal error in seperating the developement of fighting vehicle from that of antitank guns. Ross, and other experts, aurgued that it was vital to design the right tank gun, and then build a suitable vehicle to carry it. Instead, throughout the Second World War, a succesion of British tanks were produced in isolation from any consideration either of the enemy gun that they must expect to meet, or of the weight of armour that their own guns must expect to penetrate. Tank design was located at Chobham, while gun design was sited at Woolwich. Although the design of the superb British 17-pounder gun was approved and a prototype constructed in June 1941, it was not mounted in a tank until the first Sherman Firefly was belatedly produced in August 1943, in too small quantities to influence Overlord decisively. "It is not unfair to say," declared Ross, who served for much of the war as a British Technical Liaison officer to the U.S. Army Ordanance in Detroit, " that little of the labour and materials expended on the 25,000 British-built tanks helped win the war."

-I think the Allies put to much emphasis on the Air War in Europe in the early 1940s and too little on developing the ground weapons that would be needed to defeat the Germans in the field later on. I suppose this reflected the strategic situation from 1940-1944 when Allied airforces in Europe were responsible for conducting the bulk of the offense against Germany. Germany on the other hand had been been fighting a bitter ground war against the largest army in the world and had been forced to develope the most efficient and effective weapons as a matter of survival. I think its a tribute to the Allied soldiers in the west that they did as well as they did with the equipment they had.

 

What makes you think the American arms and tanks were any good? In fact they were utter rubbish compared with the Germans. Every weapon the Germans had was superior, the American tanks were named Tommy cookers and our men called them Ronson lighters "Lights up first time, every time" Shermans would burst into flames if you looked at them. "And did" Goodwood was a prime example of just how bad they were..... we lost 400 tanks. mostly "Tommy Cookers"

Ok, go back to the stores area, and get another lot!
Sapper

 

I disagree

On the contary, in 39-40, I would contend that the equipment of the British army was in many ways better than than anything the Germans had.

The main weapon of the German infantry throughout WW2 was a bolt action rifle the excellent kwk 98, but in many experts view the best battlefield bolt action rifle was the SMLE

The Bren is classed as one of the greatest squad MG's ever made, there was nothing outdated or unreliable about it.
The MG 34 and 42 were excellent weapons, trouble is they tended to use more ammo then could be carried

Sorry, but the Matilda mk II was better than any German tank in the 39-40 period.
The main problem for the British army in its fight against Germany was the decision after Dunkirk to continue building the existing equipment to make up the losses instead of introducing the next generation of equipment, which placed the British at a disadvantage in the 41-42 period


The main troubles of the British army in the early war period (39-42) had less to do with its equipment, and more to do with its various arms ( armour/infantry/artillery) inability to fight as a team


[/quote]

 

If you look at the British equipment in the early part of the war it compares very much with what everyone else had at the time. The one exeption is of course the Germans with their exellent tanks and section machine guns. They still used the bolt action rifle as the standard infantry weapon though and as for the British having nothing worth having until the Americans joined the war, look at the abomination they had as section automatic weapon, the BAR. I'd say the Bren was far superior to that. In fact the Americans never got a decent section weapon during the war having tried the .30 Cal fitted with a bi-pod. It may have done the job, but it and its ammo were too heavy for the job expected of it.

No, I think the equipment the British had, although not the best it could have been, was not the reason for their lack of success. As the British entered the war, the Germans had already sorted out their drills and tactics and as the British started to fight they were already on the back foot and didn't have the chance to get into their stride before being pushed back to the coast.

Only my opinion of course

 

I love a good discussion!!
Let's take them in order.

1. Morse 1001. "One of the best recommendations of the SMLE was the quote from an USMC Company comander who said after the retreat from the Chosin Reservoir, "if we had the Lee-Enfield, then there would have been no retreat"."

Why?? Was there an explanation of this quote? Better weapon or worse riflemen?? I know that the USMC has a rifleman's creed and the SMLE in the hands of a 1914 trained British soldier could do wonders but? I do agree about the ridiculous 10 year rule.

2.Dac " that little of the labour and materials expended on the 25,000 British-built tanks helped win the war."
I'd agree with that.

3. Sapper
"What makes you think the American arms and tanks were any good? "

I didn't mate. No mention of superiority of American kit. Just inferiority of Brit compared to the oppo!!

4. redcoat
Yes! the best BOLT ACTION rifle. My issue was fire volume. Bren outdated because of the 30 round mag. You need firepower. I trained on LMG's - updated Brens in the 1970's - fantastic accuracy but 30 rounds goes nowhere on a modern (1940's) battlefield let alone 1982! - you need(ed) 1000 + rpm.
"the Matilda mk II was better than any German tank in the 39-40 period." Great! the major period for tank action was the desert in 41 when it was outclassed! Hence your next sentence.
Yes, you are absolutely right, the lack of the "Panzer Division" type all arms team is vital but I would contend that on the ground you need the kit to do it.

More please, it makes us all think.
Chris C

 

Why?? Was there an explanation of this quote? Better weapon or worse riflemen?? I know that the USMC has a rifleman's creed and the SMLE in the hands of a 1914 trained British soldier could do wonders but? I do agree about the ridiculous 10 year rule.

What many do not realise is that Royal marines fought at chosin as well and the quoteed comes from a Company commander who fought alongside the Bootnecks. the main part of it being hat the SMLE did not freeze up or jam as did the american standard issue weapon.

 

Plant Pilot "as for the British having nothing worth having until the Americans joined the war,"
Never said owt of the sort! As for tactics couldn't agree more.

Morse 1001 "Royal marines fought at chosin as well and the quoteed comes from a Company commander who fought alongside the Bootnecks. the main part of it being hat the SMLE did not freeze up or jam as did the american standard issue weapon.
Ta for that, aware of RM in Korea. Interesting about freezing or jamming but I recall a SF demo in the 80's which showed the Western weapons (M16) nasty tendency to jam in mud as against the "peasant " AK

 

Originally posted by Chris C@Aug 5 2005, 11:46 PM
you need(ed) 1000 + rpm.[post=37308]Quoted post[/post]

Why? 1000rpm is superb for a fixed defence but not much cop for a PBI on the move!

Dave.

 

Well Dave, I liked to see GPMG style SF linked up fire in the attack. Longdon, Wireless Ridge. Remember the piece of s**t that was (is) the LSW??

Put the rounds down the range mate

Chris C

Actually drifting a bit off topic here.. Also forgot the Vickers Gun - the best "heavy" MG ever??

 

Originally posted by Chris C@Aug 6 2005, 12:34 AM
Remember the piece of s**t that was (is) the LSW?? [post=37312]Quoted post[/post]

Yeah. (Unfortunately). The gimpy made a comeback though!

Dave.

 

Originally posted by Chris C@Aug 5 2005, 04:46 PM
4. redcoat
Yes! the best BOLT ACTION rifle. My issue was fire volume. Bren outdated because of the 30 round mag. You need firepower. I trained on LMG's - updated Brens in the 1970's - fantastic accuracy but 30 rounds goes nowhere on a modern (1940's) battlefield let alone 1982! - you need(ed) 1000 + rpm.
[post=37308]Quoted post[/post]

It's my understanding that the Bren was prized for its accuracy and dependibilty both, seeing service as late as the Gulf War of 1991 with U.S. special forces. As for the MG34 and MG42 they put out tremendous amounts of fire but were also prone to breakdown due to their sophistication, especially in the harsh conditions found on the Russian front.

As to the inferiority of British ground weapons, this was partly as a result of the tremendous amount of resources that went into developing and producing the superb weapons that made up the RAF(Mosquito, Lancaster, Bristol Beaufighter etc...). When more modern British equipment became opperational from 1945- such as the Centurion tank it was the equal of any in the world.

 

Originally posted by sapper@Aug 5 2005, 02:43 PM
What makes you think the American arms and tanks were any good? In fact they were utter rubbish compared with the Germans. Every weapon the Germans had was superior, the American tanks were named Tommy cookers and our men called them Ronson lighters "Lights up first time, every time" Shermans would burst into flames if you looked at them. "And did" Goodwood was a prime example of just how bad they were..... we lost 400 tanks. mostly "Tommy Cookers"

Ok, go back to the stores area, and get another lot!
Sapper
[post=37304]Quoted post[/post]

The Poles called their Shermans "Rolling Coffins".

Doug

 

Actually drifting a bit off topic here.. Also forgot the Vickers Gun - the best "heavy" MG ever??

At the battle of the imjim river, the vickers used by the glosters were thought to have fired around 1 million rounds without a stoppage!

 

Ta for that, aware of RM in Korea. Interesting about freezing or jamming but I recall a SF demo in the 80's which showed the Western weapons (M16) nasty tendency to jam in mud as against the "peasant " AK

David beckworth in his book, "About Time" talked about a ad hoc demo he did to show how good the ak47 was.

One had been found buried in a shell hole for some months, he picked it up cocked it and then let rip.

The M16, was normally called the "Jamming Jenny" by the Americans. One reason for the jamming was that the Americans were buying a lot of sub-standard ammo.

The foot-sloggers brought another problem with them, though— that Mickey Mouse M16 rifle. With eight years of active duty, much of it airborne infantry, and with a master-rifleman's rating, I state categorically that the "Mattel toy rifle" is not fit for a grown man to fight a war with. Time after time, we'd see the soldiers going out with fully assembled cleaning rods taped to the stocks of their weapons, and the tank commanders had the same disaster story to tell. They would have half a squad out of action at the same time—every one of the soldiers using a cleaning rod or a bayonet to clear the action of his weapon.
Something from way back in the past began to creep to the top of my memory. On one marksmanship detachment, we'd had a couple of instructors—Sergeants Boutin and Vigaletti—who'd shot well enough to have been designated into the United States "President's One Hundred" (the top one hundred marksmen in the nation) for that year. One of them had said something that might explain the problem.
"Brass gets terribly hard when it's compressed, and making cartridges out of it creates brittleness, so each completed case is heated and allowed to cool gradually." He went on» to explain, "That's why all military ammo is discoloured—to prove that it's been treated."
"Dagnall," I said, "we've got about five: different lots of 5.56mm the bunker. Get me a couple-hundred rounds of each one, while I go find a rifle."
I'd been talking quite a bit about this, so when Dagnall showed | up with the ammo, there was half an infantry squad with their lieutenant and our Lieutenant Walker, all wanting to see the test. We went to the west end of the perimeter, after warning the troops that | there would be a lot of firing—but not to panic; it would all be friendly.
Upon examination, one lot of 5.56 turned out to have nice, shiny case necks, just like civilian ammo. Sure enough, I couldn't get even one magazine of it through a clean well-oiled M16 without at least three stoppages. Mystery solved: we turned in the bad lot, and that company's blockage rate went down to almost nothing.

Zumbro, Ralph., Tank Sergeant, Presidio, Novato CA, 1986 PP94-95

 

here is an interesting photo of a SMLE Mk1 Pre 1916, its the volley sight that was fitted to the weapon.


View attachment 950



here is a manual including various specs for the SMLE

View attachment 951


This is a rifle that the Army changed its mind on!
em2
View attachment 948

 

this was partly as a result of the tremendous amount of resources that went into developing and producing the superb weapons that made up the RAF(Mosquito, Lancaster, Bristol Beaufighter etc...).

if there was any special priority for the RAF, then it was because Bomber command was the only thing that was capable of carrying out a large scale offensive

However, that does not explain why bert Harris had to fight tooth and nail for equipment.

 

Originally posted by CROONAERT+Aug 6 2005, 12:39 AM-->(CROONAERT @ Aug 6 2005, 12:39 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Chris C@Aug 6 2005, 12:34 AM
Remember the piece of s**t that was (is) the LSW?? [post=37312]Quoted post[/post]

Yeah. (Unfortunately). The gimpy made a comeback though!

Dave.
[post=37313]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
Something i found out about the Gimpy

The basic design of the FN - MAG is no more than a time-proven Browning action, taken from the M1918 BAR automatic rifle, turned upside down and adopted for belt feed.