Why did Britain not take up semi-auto rifles?

They can have 50 rd belt drums or 75 rd drums.

View attachment 14202

The connection on the drum fitted to the MG34 is because this particular one has been converted to gas operation.

For comparison I went with the authorized equipment table. Some Basic British Infantry sections had 2 Brens because they aquired a second one. If you start including all the types of infantry section then British Carrier Platoons had even more firepower.
I went for the 3 countries basic infantry sections. not enhanced or armoured, para, commando etc etc all of which had different TOE's.

 

Actually the British Army and Royal Marine Commando units did use the Garand semi-automatic.

Here is a piece taken from Brigadier Trevors' book - battle of Kangaw, Burma

"One of the advantages 1 Commando had over theother units was that we had brought from North Africa when we werewith the Americans, Garand self-loading rifles with a bore of .3”with which they were armed. These rifles give a very high rate offire, we also had the normal British – .303 LMG’s, 3” mortarsand American Thompson Sub-machine guns. "

As you are probably aware, Commando units of the British Armed Forces specialised in infiltration and operations behind enemy lines. Their requirements for massive, rapid weight of small arms fire, would be different to Infantry Line regiments.By early 1945, all the Commando Brigade in Burma ie 1 and 5 Army Commando and 42 and 47 Royal Marine Commandos had replaced all their .303 bolt action Enfields for Garands.

 

From what I recall reading the British in the Pacific tended to use more American equipment than those in Europe. It was just easier to use the US log system as much as possible.

 

To be fair, there's a slight difference in emphasis - three Commonwealth divisions were rsotered in the Commonwealth Corps for the SECOND draft of the OLYMPIC/CORONET palns...on the condition that they re-equiped with American materiel!

 

Wasn't that generally accepted by the allies as a logical equipment solution since the American logistical supply was already established in the PTO, while the Commonwealth/UK system wasn't. Just curious.

 

But you are not explaining this - 1 Army Commando had already converted to Garands in North Africa.

Early in 1944, 44 RM Royal Marine Commando were using 303 Enfields but by the end of the year had converted to Garands as did all other Commando units in 3rd SS Brigade - ie 1 Army, 5 Army, 42 RM and 44 RM Commando.

If you look at the weapons they used there was a tremendous emphasis on firepower - much more than regular Infantry Units. As an elite, I suspect they were able to call the tune to an extent in the weapons they got and they clearly preferred the Garand for the work they carried out.

 

Oh just remembered they were also using the "expensive" Thompson sub machine gun in preference to the "useless" Sten gun. Again a more appropriate weapon even though American made and more expensive.

 

While the M1A1 was more expensive than the STEN, and the M3 "Grease Gun", it was (as you say) much more dependable/reliable than the STEN. The M3 wasn't all that bad, and at less than $20 US, it was certainly a buy compared to the M1A1 Thompson. The cost had been substancially lowered by the end of the production run, and wasn't near the budget buster it had been in the late thirties.

An M1A1 could be produced in half the time of a M1928A1, and at a much lower cost. In 1939 Thompsons cost the government $209 apiece. By Spring of 1942 cost reduction design changes had brought this down to $70. In February of 1944 the M1A1 reached a low price of $45 each, including accessories and spare parts. But by the end of 1944, the M1A1 was replaced with the even lower cost M3 "Grease Gun".

Goto:

The Unofficial Tommy Gun Page