Why did Britain not take up semi-auto rifles?

Well, I think that Britian didn't use semi automatic because the jamming issues and over all costs may be too much due to the German bombers in Britian during the war.

 

The British were making lots of fighters OK, I doubt new rifles would have been beyond the pale.

Also, with the possibility of a few small exceptions, the British and Russians didn't license-produce US lend-lease equipment. It was given to them. This was in the days before high-speed internet, computer aided design and even mass-standardization of measurements (British made FAL rifles have slightly different, and non-interchangeable dimensions compared to Belgian-made ones). Simply giving the British the plans for the Garand rifle to have them make it would not be as straightforward and fast as it would be today. It took over a year for the Americans to start making their V-1650 Merlin clones in earnest IIRC.

And in any case, you'd have an uphill argument to make to convince the British authorities which Hurricane or Spitfire plant you were going to close to make these new rifles. If they really needed new rifles and not new airplanes then you'd know things had gone south.

 

Well you are wrong, it wasn't any issue with "jamming" it was an issue of production and need. The SMLE was such a good bolt action that some of those who were on the receiving end thought it was a semi-automatic rifle. The Brits didn't NEED a rifle like the Garand for their troops, nor could they change the entire system to incorporate the concept and production into their production, training and delivery logistics effectively. In this case the old dictum comes to the fore; "it ain't broke, don't fix it".

 

Probably the best actual answer so far.

 

The British, watching the American developments with the .276 pedersen cartridge and the various self-loading rifles, considered switching to the .276 and tested some self-loaders. None were reliable enough. Then the U.S. dropped the .276 and with the Depression economics argued against the change.

THE WHITE RIFLES

There's an interesting question: What if the US and the UK had both switched to the .276 cartridge in the mid-30's and adopted the Garand rifle?

As for the Marines and the M1, I can't help but wonder if perhaps a little inter-service rivalry affected the Marines early attitude towards the M1. It was "The Army's" rifle. There was a faction in the Marine Corps that supported adopting the Johnson semi-auto rifle, designed by Marine Reserve officer Melvin Johnson.

 

during world war two the a small number of british special forces units operating inside of german did become equiped with M1 Grands aswell as the M1A1 Thompson to have ease of suppression and the ability to put a lot more rounds down range onto a target

 

Remember the Brits had the "Bren" This. was avery reliable and efective LMG out to 1000 yds. Fired them myself in the NZ army and prefer them over the GPMG belt fed 7.62. The other reason could be that they were slow to realise that war was just round the corner and they didnt update from the WWi rifle surplus supplies the had stokpiled
Rakau

 

Clint, there was actually (and for surviving items still is) a jamming isue, particularly with British manufacture SMLEs - the lengendary headspace issue.

British .303 munitions were produced to very varying tolerances - particularly the dimensions of the neck and taper of the cartridge...which could lead to jamming when the brass defomed in the breech and jammed in place. A Brtish armourer's kit would contain four different sizes of bolt head, and rifles could have this replaced to take up as much play as possible in an attempt to reduce the space to be filled by a deforming cartridge when fired. It's still an issue for surviving SMLEs around the world today if you Google on Lee Enfield and headspace, most expert gunshops and armourers provide a service correcting the bolt head to take up space....

I'm not aware if the issue is as bad in Lee Enfields produced in India, or Linlithgow in Australia.

Yes it was really a problem with the ammunition - but it was the rifles that suffered stoppages

It was the same problem that killed the reputation of the Canadian Ross Rifle; when the CEF arrived in France in WWI, they brought a certain a ount of Canadian-made .303 with them - and when this was used up (rapidly!) they began using british .303....and THAT'S when the Ross's famous jamming began.

The problem THEN was that Canadian Ross rifles and Canadian .303 was made on brand-new tooling...unlike British Lee Enfields which were made with sloppier tolerances that could be taken up with re-sized bolt heads. In other words - with tweaking, a British rifle COULD be made to relatively reliably fire the British .303 round which was similarly made to sloppier tolerances than the Canadian ammunition!

The far more accucrtely and closely-machined Ross couldn't handle the varying dimensions of British .303 - and frequently jammed. But when firing Canadian munitions was quite reliable, and in fact was a favoured championship target shooting rifle between the wars!

 

That is all well and good, but the jamming issue dispute between myself and the other poster (TacticalTank) was in regard to the Garand, not the SMLE.

 

I realize I'm jumping in late here but here's my $.10s worth (inflation).

The .303 British cartridge was obsolete by the turn of the 20th century. It belonged in the same class of cartridges as the 8mm Lebel and 30-40 Krag. However, it went with the Enfield rifle (not so obsolete) so the British "made do" with it for another 55 years or so.

In WWII context it was an EXCELLENT rifle for defending Tobruk where good defensive positions and the ability to see the enemy and engage them at fairly long range made the rifle quite effective. In the more closed battle environment of NW Europe where Commonwealth forces often attacked an enemy it rarely saw, it was much less so. It has been pointed out that troops armed with bolt-action rifles often felt themselves psychologically dominated in a battlefield commanded by full-auto weapons. These troops, many times hastily conscripted and quickly trained often felt unable to influence the battle and on many occaisions didn't even fire their weapons. German studies showed that men armed with semi and full-auto firearms were much more likely to fire their weapons than those with bolt actions. So, should the British have gone to a semi-auto battle rifle? Of course, but for all the reasons mentioned in previous posts, those in charge felt it would have been a poor move to do so.

However, the Enfield has to be seen in the context of the entire British small arms armory. Unfortunately, the Vickers heavy MG and the BREN gun, while good dependable firearms, were equally obsolete, if not more so. The Vickers, while good in the defence, was hard to move around and this limited mobility was a detriment in the offensive warfare that the British were engaged in from 1942 onward. The Bren gun also suffered in comparison to German SAWs, the MGs 34 and 42. All in all, British small arms were more appropriate for WWI than for WWII. All of this contributed to the British infantry being less effective than it could have been. Still, the British realized by 1942 that they were going to be on the winning side so there was no overwhelming reason for them to switch horses in mid-stream. They could "make do and muddle through". By contrast, Germany, ringed by enemies becoming ever more powerful, adopted ever-newer weapons systems in order to try and sweep back the tide of power that would eventually overwhelm them.

On the other hand, the fact that they went into the Korean War with the exact same weapons was an indictment agains the British government, but that is a topic for another forum.

 

The is a difference in doctrine between countries in regard to the use of small arms. British troops have always been trained to fire deliberate aimed shots (partly to conserve ammunition). The Lee Enfield backed up by a good LMG the Bren fulfilled this requirement. The Vickers (MMG not HMG as the vickers HMG was a 0.5" weapon) was used in the attack and defence firing in the direct and indirect roles.

The US had more of a requirement for each man to have an automatic weapon as they did not have a very effective LMG, total firepower in equivalent sized sections between the two armies was about the same.

Using weapons such as the MG34 and more so the MG42 with their high rate of fire (1200rpm in the case of the MG42) meant they were more effective in the defence than attack as you have to carry such a huge amount of ammunition to support them. German forces were despite all their technical designs still largely equipped with bolt action rifles in May 1945. The MG34 did lead the way towards the GPMG though as it could be used in the LMG role and SF role.

Very few WW2 battlefields were dominated by automatic weapons.
Hastily conscripted and quickly trained troops would not be effective and would suffer the same no matter what weapon they had in their hands, if not properly trained they may actually be worse as the automatic weapons are more complicated to use and maintain.
German troops that got the automatic rifles tended to be the best troops so you would expect them to perform much better than the hastily conscripted and poorly trained often reluctant Volksturm.

 

leccyl,

First of all, perhaps by Vickers terminology their water-cooled MG in 303 is a medium, but anyone trying to pick it up would agree it's a HEAVY! Actually, any MG mounted on a tripod and capable of sustained fire is considered a HMG. This is more a role rather than a weight or caliber designation. Certainly the Vickers supported attacks but once the attack succeeded and the lines moved forward, moving the gun, with its water, ammo, tripod, etc was a major undertaking. Setting up, taking down, and humping all that weight was not a task for wimps. It was much more effective in the defensive role (as was the Browning 1917). Unfortunately, the Allies were attacking so that left most of the mg support in UK infantry units, assuming no tank were attached, to the Bren Gun.

What do you mean by your comment that, "The US had more of a requirement for each man to have an automatic (sic) weapon as they did not have a very effective LMG..."? Are you referring to the BAR or the Browning 1917 or 1919? This seems strange to me but perhaps you could explain.

Actually, ALL armies train their soldiers to fire deliberately aimed shots! I've never heard of a firearms instructor telling his recruits, "At the end of this training you will be able to fire random, poorly aimed shots at the enemy!" However, studies have shown that training often breaks down in battle. This topic would take a thread in itself so I won't digress on it any more. Most infantry divisions start out with well-trained troops that have actually gone through perhaps years together before seeing combat such as many of the UK troops before Normandy. These troops were well trained but once casualties occurred, the casualties were replaced by less well trained troops who had to learn by OJT and often didn't survive the experience. They were replaced by equally poorly trained replacements and so on. These less well trained soldiers often didn't have confidence in themselves or their weapons. It wasn't just the Volksturm that was lacking.

Certainly WW2 battlefields were dominated by machineguns. Max Hastings has pointed out that one well-sited MG-42 could force much larger force (up to a battalion) to ground. UK forces often had only Brens and Stens to reply to MG-42s and MP-38s. It is well known that at the company level and down that the Germans had a considerable advantage in firepower. Generally, when Allied troops confronted this type of firepower they hunkered down and waited for a tank or got another unit to outflank the MG. US Army units that could get their infantry to use "walking fire" with their M-1s in an attack often had good success. The normal human inclination when confronted by a lot of lead flying around is to duck.

 

The Vickers .303 was still classed as a MMG though the same as the Browning M1917 and M1919.

The BAR was the standard SAW/LMG and did not have the firepower that the Bren did, it was after all a heavy automatic rifle, giving each man in a section an automatic rifle meant they had a similar actual firepower per 10 man section.

The Allies tended to attack supported by close artillery, armour (the I tanks were designed for the role) or air support, sometimes all of these. This meant less requirement for infantry carried heavy weapons in the assault. The Germans in defence could stockpile large amounts of ammunition for their GPMG's which would be difficult to carry for attacking troops. They required much more firepower in their sections as they were generally poorly supported if at all and had to make up with sheer expenditure. SMG's are only useful for short range fighting, the vast majority of the Heer were still armed with bolt action rifles of many types all through the war (In fact only the US Army was widely equipped with semi automatic rifles during WW2). When the Germans attacked they faced the same problem with attacking sited MMG's, LMG's and had more of a chance of encountering Arty, tank or air support.

The replacement troops would act the same whether given an automatic rifle or a bolt action, an automatic rifle though leads to quicker expenditure or weapon failures due to the in-experience and maybe lower training standards.

The normal inclination is to duck when coming under fire yes that is true, then quite often its point and snap shoot in general direction, semi autos lead to high ammunition expenditure's, bolt actions have an inherent speed regulator allowing control to be gained.
is there a bad reason to wait for some big friendly tank to come and give you a hand after all you are there to support each other.

The British and US used different tactics to get the job done, this meant that different weapon types were suited to each others tactics. Why did the US not adopt the British 17pdr towed AT gun to replace its 6pdr's, this sort of too'ing and fro'ing could go on about most weapons used.

 

Actually the water cooled M1917 was considered a heavy machine gun. See:
M1917 Browning machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The BAR was an automatic rifle. It was not an LMG and the term SAW was not in use at the time.

There is a difference between and automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle. It's not clear if you are confusing them or just sloppy with your wording.

The same argument was used against "magazine rifles" (i.e. repeaters lever or bolt) in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The semi auto as a much lower effect on rate of fire than that. Indeed it would be intersting to see some data on just what the impact of semi auto's was on ammo consumption.

Why would they want to when they could get 90mm guns faster and cheaper?

 

How was the BAR used, being as it was a very heavy (21lb) Rifle (incidently the same weight as the Bren Mk 3 and 4 with full 30 round mags). It was used for Air Defence, Base of Fire, Supporting the Assaults. There were concerns about its excessive ammunition expenditure (taken from US Infantry Tactics Manual 1940). Sounds pretty much like it was used as a squad automatic weapon or LMG no matter what you call it.

Not confusing them at all, call it some lazy editing if you wish

My reply was in the context of poorly trained troops put forward by harolds and that giving them an automatic rifle would not make them better but possibly worse and gave a couple of reasons. Magazine fed were seen as an advantage in the same as breech loaders were seen as an advantage over muzzle loaders. I also pointed out that despite his seeming statement that the Germans were nearly all armed with automatic weapons and how much more effective they were, that since the weapons tended to go to the best units of course they would perform better, also the vast majority of German troops were armed with various bolt action rifles.

Did the US use a 90mm towed AT gun?. The US set up production lines for British 6 pdrs to equip their forces they could have done the same and maybe even fitted the 17 pdr to their Shermans making them much more effective as AT weapons. You can ask why the British did not adopt the Garand and I can ask why they never did the 17 pdr, after all they adopted the 6 pdr.

I will give some more reasons for not adopting the Garand though that may satisfy some folks, since tactics and doctrine don't seem to.

1. The Commonwealth were all equipped with the .303 Lee Enfield (millions of them).
2. There were factories all round the world set up to produce them and the rounds.
3. The .303 round was effective and was the common calibre in rifles, LMG, MMG throughout the Commonwealth.
4. It was a major war and to change weapon and ammunition would mean a loss of production while re tooling takes place.
5. It would mean either more different calibres entering the supply chain or changing all MG's as well as rifles.
6. Retraining existing troops on a more complicated weapon when the sections already had equivalent firepower, changing small unit tactics to suit the new weapons.
7. Foreign weapon and round so they would either have to be paid for and supplied by the US or a license paid to produce the rifles and rounds and with Britain pretty much broke it was an un-necessary cost.

 

Personally, I have never heard or read of any real probems American forces had with running out of ammo as long as the normal supply lines were functioning. For that matter, I can say the same thing for German forces with their MG 42s and what-not. In fact, the Heer pushed for, and eventually got, the StG44 so they didn't seem to worry about "high ammunition expenditure". It's a plain fact that firepower wins battles. Precious few US Marines on Guadalcanal wanted to return to their '03 Springfields after they had some experience with the Garand. Remember, the object of firepower is not only to kill and wound your opponent, but to also dominate him psychologically.

As far as the BAR/BREN thing. I consider the terminology of "Automatic Rifle" and "Light MG" to be just a diffence in terminology. Both were magazine fed, fully-automatic weapons firing around 500rpm cyclic rate and were squad base-of-fire weapons. What they did was extremely similar. The BREN probably had a slight edge due to its magazine having a 30 rd capacity vs. the BAR's 20 round magazine.

While bolt actions generally are more reliable under adverse conditions than semi and full-auto weapons, proper maintenance will keep them firing reliably. The real reason semi-auto rifles weren't adopted earlier or gained more converts was the difficulty in getting one that was robust enough to withstand the rigors of combat. The Garand was the first one to really be able to do so.

 

I've read in the past the the Marine Corps reason for not initially adopting the Garand was the expected waste of ammunition fired indiscriminately in the semi-automatic mode.

 

I remember reading somewhere that while the troops were trained in the States for careful but rapid "aimed fire", when they arrived on the battle front they had to be "retrained" to use rapid fire with their Garands and BARs to "fix, flank, and advance". They were now informed that "bullets were cheaper than men", and firing to "keep the German's head down" was an important part of the infantry tactics now in use.

I sure could be remembering that wrong, but for some reason it sticks in my mind.

 

The name of the thread is "Why did Britain not take up semi-automatic rifles", not "why did the US not take up the 17 pounder". Someone asked a question and discussion followed. Feel free to start another thread questioning the reasons why the US didn't or should've adopted the 17 pounder if you like. It might be interesting and informative as long as it doesn't devolve into a British or US bashing fest.

 

You're quite correct. This was discussed a few years back on Feldgrau...for apparently it then led to the situation where one American General remarked that U.S. troops actually seemed loath to fire AT real live living Germans, and instead were just hosing through their loads in their general diection! The expenditure of small arms' ammunition versus German casualties appeared to be far higher in Amrican units than British ones...