Why didn't the Brits develop any self loading rifle like every other major power of WW2?

>implying you could fuck a 13 treat old and get away with it like he did

Real question is why they were using Lee-Enfield rifles when they could have been using 1914 Enfields.

/thread

>let’s warmonger but not openly
>let’s fight under equipped with out dated equipment
>let’s pretend that we’re still the empire we once were

Wat?

They looked at them in the years between the wars but decided to put their limited funds into much more meaningful things like radar and aircraft development.

Because the .303 conversion never worked right and bongs would be DAMNED before they ever spent the money to adopt a rimless cartridge.

>Because the .303 conversion never worked right
[citation needed]

they could shot fast and accurate enough with the more intermediate .303 enfield.

they also had several projects to convert enfields to semiauto.

toward the last couple years of the war allied forces in europe that wanted semi autos had plenty of M1 carbines the american were passing out like candy.

On top of all of this rifles are expensive as fuck per man hour and semi autos even more. It was cheaper to make stg44s then kar 98k in man/factory hours. the Garand was a ridiculous investment that only america could have pulled off and really only was in europe sticking the marines with mostly bolt guns for most of the pacific due to how long it took to crank them out and get them in Joe's hands and that was a prewar project. look at the soviets stopping their semi auto projects under pressure and just shitting out the far more man hour cheap ppsh43 and arming whole battalions with them. mosins only stayed in production bc the factories and tooling was already there same as lee-enfields, kar98k.

david bowie was an elite degenerate who toadied to (((them))) so stories weren't published

are there any records of brits using m1 carbines or even garands? You see russians or chinese with american guns on occasion, but i havent seen brits.

lots of records of free french/polish forces using almost all m1 carbines.

Brits also used tommy guns officially.

brits tended to keep to their own rifles due to how much autism the put into training with them. also garands were not in abundance til 45 although the free french did toss theirs for carbines when given the chance. M1 carbines were the choice weapons of allied paratroops also pic related is a brit with a carbine

Attached: brit para m1.png (938x748, 1.06M)

Brits got lend lease Garands but they were left for the home guard units or RAF base security and so never saw combat use. Supposedly many were returned to the US after the war in the crates they came in

americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/6/30/garands-in-the-kings-service/

ah i see, good to know.

Looks like Hidden and dangerous 2 is accurate in that regard then.

David bowie fucked a 14 year old, Lori Maddox. no one cares because he said he was gay one time

They were to busy getting assraped by the germans.

This

Yeah.
The Brits decided to focus all effort and bombing civilians, and asking for America's help

Because they used Indians and other people from their colonies as cannon fodder and didn't care if they died.

Now I think of it; British infantry squads already had Stens and Brens. That's a lot of auto fire. Maybe the need for SLR's weren't all that great in the first place.

God damn I love how retarded /k- actually fuck that Jow Forums in general is.

>Brits also used tommy guns officially.
Brits bought tommy guns very officially right after the got beat off the continent in 1940. As a matter of fact: More or less the whole gold reserves of merry old england went into the US in exchange for tommy guns

Dude, have you seen the Size of Bowie' bulge? Dude absolutely had a horsecock

That looks fucking retarded

Money.

>303 conversion
Que?

because
>muh lee enfield so fast it's like a machine gun
>farquar hill
That's the best name you can propably give to a rifle. Can never be topped

Most self-loading rifles of the 1910s do...

The rifle originally fired .276 enfield (similar to 7mm remington magnum) but they had to change it to .303 because the war broke out. Not sure what with
>never worked out
Rifle seemed fine apart from the shitty rimmed ammo.

They made a decision to allocate thier limited resources to producing more Bren guns and Universal carriers.

How barrel works when it has that angle?

Yeah instead they just upgraded to an ally with an actual military and economy and begged for scraps

He didn't live he's dead

The nipponese are one of the worst examples of how to handle a war economy.

>Come to talk about something interesting on Jow Forums
>thread overrun with Jow Forums bullshit immediately
Try having an interesting discussion about african conflicts on Jow Forums without it descending into >lol nignogs

>the subtle wehrabooism in this thread

Attached: 5b5.png (680x680, 302K)

Part of that interesting "buy all the guns phase" following Dunkirk.

Good to consider also the 10-round capacity of the Enfield plus its smooth action, which combined to give it an impressive rate of fire for a bolt-action rifle.

We had a lot on our plate, and replacing a highly successful and much loved infantry rifle wasn't even on the list of priorities. Of the other countries OP mentioned, only the US fully adopted a battle rifle for general service, because only they really had the luxury to do so. The rest (excluding the type 4) only represented partial adoptions into service in varying degrees alongside existing bolt action designs. Most war economies found it impractical to turn over production to more complicated and expensive semi-auto rifles.

They've seen artillery, tanks, airplanes etc. as better investment.

It's just that every other major nation at least experimented with SLRs
The sovies planned on making the SVT their service rifle before the war started
The Germans panic made the 41/43 after they saw how effective the Garand was
French started making the MAS 40, that eventually became the MAS 49
The Garand needs no introduction
Just seems strange that the Brits never even looked into the concept

There's also another factor, of course. There is no known metal denser than the heads of British top brass. If it wasn't invented and tested at LEAST one generation earlier there was no way they would chance their careers on it. So the British Army of WW2 went to war with the rifles of the Boer war, a decade and half old LMG and an HMG from WW1. The only British SMG per 1939 was the Lanchester, a 99.99% copy of the MG18 and produced in smaller volumes than the Rolls Royce Silver Ghost because it was almost as expensive. The Sten was only introduced by ramming it up the asses of the procurement staff repeatedly until they said Uncle Stahp.

I'm surprised that anyone here recognized/knew of him

>brits tended to keep to their own rifles
Donated Weapons UK WWII - FIREARMS & ORDNANCE - U.S ...
Donated Weapons UK WWII ... These were donated by average American citizens who ... Inorder to keep you out of the slammer I can only send you my rifles that ...

God bless him. We can only dream of living a degenerate life so great.

He's pretty well known. No need to be a /mu/fag to know him

In a way when we talk about British doctrine centered around the development of new weaponry we have to take in mind various factors.

First of we need to understand the industrial problems that Britain faced during the early stages and I am talking about 1940, as many of you know the US did not face the destruction at the industrial level that Britain did have to endure and this lead to the common perception of "why should we reinvent the wheel?" they didn't have the capacity to produce enough semi-automatics to make an impact like the USA did.

Now like user said another problem was of course the generals, in their mind accurate shots was what won "wars" in their memoirs, they were already lucky to go from the III to the IV but for them they did not require any upgrades. The most important innovations in terms of Unit Section firepower was the introduction of the Stenn and the PIAT that both proved to be important enough to improve the effectiveness of the section while in battle.

There is also of course another problem that for example the US did not have and that was the allocation of resources between the various branches. The Navy and the Airforce most of the time were the ones that had the best "minds" and for that same reason had their resources increased while the infantry at best had some improvements like I said with the Sten and PIAT.

Expanding a bit on the resources it is important to say that British war time development focused highly in saving resources, unless they were able to construct a semi-automatic that allowed for a cheaper construction when compared to the SMLE then it would be useless, the soldiers would use more ammo and that would put more stress in their war time economy for a need of resources that could not be sustained, just look at inventions like the Sten and the Havilland Mosquito and you will understand what I am talking about.

In short, resources, mentality and an overall lack of need for it.

Attached: 1511114701709.jpg (1213x936, 123K)

british army soldiers obviously, british home army bullshit doesn't really count

The brits began a self loading rifle project in 1940, using belgian teams that had fled the continent, but it advanced slowly due to priority being given to other projects and regular changes in the required specs.
Still resulted in the SLEM 1 rifle in 1944.

>bongs would be DAMNED before they ever spent the money to adopt a rimless cartridge.
They adopted 7,92 mauser and used it though the entire war. The new rifle was supposed to use it during most of its development.

Attached: SLEM1-0703[1].png (1024x381, 113K)

it it worked out so well for them?

As an analogy we can look at the other big Commonwealth countries; Canada and Australia. Both were following the example of England closely. Up to the start of WW2; then Canada chose to make Stens with a higher finish than the original, while Australia first make their Sten copy (the Austen) and then went into a rather different direction with the Owen; again completely against the tastes of the Australian top brass. But neither checked out the semi auto concept. Which is a little odd, especially in the case of the Australians who were fighting tooth and nail the whole war through. Perhaps the lethargic top brass has to answer for that one too. But Canada was neither under attack nor pressed for materials so it's even harder to explain that one.

>ww2
ok kid

Usually, you don't want to adopt a new rifle right during a war. Especially when you have hundreds of thousands of prefectly serviceable semi autos laying in your armories.

What semi autos would this be?

brain fart, sorry. Meant bolt actions.

>More or less the whole gold reserves of merry old england went into the US in exchange for tommy guns
most of it went on planes, the tommy guns were seen as a stop gap until a indigenous SMG entered general production, and were not a high priority

it was on the list, but low on the list, armor, artillery, aircraft etc all had higher priority.

>British Army of WW2 went to war with the rifles of the Boer war, a decade and half old LMG and an HMG from WW1
thats a little unfair, the rifle had been through several marks since the boer war, the LMG was extremely good and the HMG while heavy was incredibly reliable, and they did have other HMGs and LMGs as well.

and other than the germans nobody really had newer LMGs or HMGs, the US were using browning weapons designed for ww1, the french were still using the hotchkiss.

>Yeah.The Brits decided to focus all effort and bombing civilians, and asking for America's help

Yes. Best way to stop what the Germans were doing. A hard moral decision but the right one given the number of civilians the Germans were executing and had executed in places like Ukraine and Poland, but also the amount dying in forced labour. Not to say they did not kill civilians literally everywhere they went in reprisals but their you go, the Nazis were an evil bunch of fucks as was the nkvd and Stalin who they partnered with in attacking Poland as allies.

F for the heroes of bomber command

Brit generals weren’t exactly eager to adopt various war time related things, especially given the state of the UK post WW1. They focused more on things like aircraft and radar development, where things like the sten and lee enfield were deemed good enough for infantry use. And of course you had the lend lease available to get US semi autos that were popping up like bedbugs everywhere.

british firearms have always been shit, and still are.

>Why didn't the Brits develop any self loading rifle like every other major power of WW2?
The answer is their strategic position, an Island.The critical thing for them was defence and offence which being an island were best done using naval and airpower and in the finl stages of the war, combined arms in which artillery airpower, armour, logistics not small arms are the deciding factors. The vast majority of German troops armed with bolt action troops with the occasional submachine gun. The British were already able to match that code breading, radar an sonar were the key technologies in that war

Much as I am a fan of the Bren gun it was a magazine fed weapon. Compared with the M1919 or MG34 it was closer to being an assault rifle than an MG.

When the Brits went to punish the Krauts in 1940 they brought 30.000 Brens with them. They brought only 2.300 back which essentially meant that the army had practically no LMGs left. Clearly this could have been the moment to make an overseas call and ask "Hi Uncle Sam, mind if we take a peak at your MG blueprints?"

The fault of the government for having enacted creeping gun control legislation which disarmed the citizen militia, because the elites feared a worker's revolt and communism (and were right to).
This article discusses the UK's right to arms (legislated in the English Bill of Rights 1689 which you can read online, ctrl+f "arm" or "arms")
misesuk.org/2014/12/22/the-british-constitution-and-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-for-defence/

>given the number of civilians the Germans were executing and had executed in places like Ukraine and Poland,
>Germans
That's a funny way to spell Soviets

autism?

Because they didn't have to. They were too busy fighting and were able to source equipment form the US during it's building before entering the war. Obviously, due to the bombardments and actively being in a war for some time, they had limited resources. The US, was far and away and it's industry and manufacturing was safe. I don't know why people ask these stupid fucking questions. Did yo pay attention in school? Can't you think intuitively? Cunt.

It's a LMG instead of a GMPG. Doctrinal choice.
The brits had tons of belt fed MGs, just not for their infantry.

>t'was all the soviets
All those soviet undercover agents executing people left and right in occupied countries like France, Belgium or the Netherlands, too...

Attached: 6898170893_0b343615c1_z[1].jpg (640x497, 73K)

>brits didn't make an assault rifle until the 80's
>it's shit
That's why, do I really need to spoonfeed this shit to you?

Attached: Being_a_naziboo_2016_12_18_23_52_53_UTC.png (600x602, 562K)

>>brits didn't make an assault rifle until the 80's
we tried the project got canceled when a new government came into power 1951 in favour of nato standardisation

Attached: em2.jpg (620x395, 58K)

Oh yeah, that rifle.
Why did you make the L85 if that was already a thing? L64/65 seemed like an ok enough design.

They had far too many millions of lee engfields, they had like 45 years worth of them by that point.
Their only option given their level of industry was conversion kits, and as a rule of thumb those always suck, are overly bulky and complex, are designed for ease of assembly rather than effectiveness/utility/longevity/etc, and rely on an armorer rather than factory refurbishment.
It just wasn't feasible given the timescale.

No, the sten design does not lend itself well to rifle cartridges without using a uranium bolt.

>SLEM 1 rifle in 1944
>belgians
Is that why it looks like the fn 1949?

>SKS looks even more similar to it than to the 1949
Why do communists have no morals?

Your expecting a S-oy to be educated in history. Don't you know the Yanks were the NAZIs?

They were going to standardize on P.14s then WW1 happened.

Huge truths

I think you have a misunderstanding of the importance of what you issue your grunts.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that it would be irrelevant.
Just that air superiority, armour and tactical use of machine and sub-machine guns might have more impact, than replacing a service rifle which has superior accuracy and effective range over other semi-automatic options.
You need to consider the role of the rifle within the British ranks senpai.

It's harder to market 'outdated' rifles, even with a mature technology. Everyone wants the latest brand.

The US really likes to fuck up everyone else with Nato standardization
>.280, 7,5x54, 7,92 CETME
>Those are nice, but they aren't american. Our common round shall be 7,62x51, despite its utter mediocrity compared to all other entries.
>...
>And now that everyone has adopted 7,62 nato, we'll start using .223 Remington.

Yep. Same designer (Dieudonné Saive)

the em-2 couldnt be adapted to 7.62 nato so the new Churchill government cancelled the project
the sa80 was developed as 7.62 nato was too much in northern ireland, yes you shot the terrorist but the round is now located in some poor civilians kitchen having passed through half their house
i feel if the em-2 wasnt cancelled we would have advanced further in rifle design
even though i love the slr i feel the em-2 was revolutionary for the early 50s

Attached: 1438214275_em-2.jpg (666x810, 119K)

>The US really likes to fuck up everyone else with Nato standardization
Arguably the beginning of the end. The start of what we have now, with cartridges that cause problems in some way being adopted whereas one of the non standardized cartridges could get the job done better and more efficiently.
For a country that's at war a lot, the US can be surprisingly inept with adopting service weaponry. I mean, they chose Sig over Glock for fucks sake.

>SIG over Glock.
>Can of worms.

The defeated countries from the early war don't get nearly enough credits for transferring their brains, troops, gold and blueprints to the rest of the allies.

The UK and the US got ungodly amounts of support that way. I think all the heavy water available at the start of the manhattan project was owned by the french, foreign pilots made for a lot of the battle of Britain, and so on.

I was very disappointed by The Imitation Game movie for completely ignoring the work of the polish codebreakers on Enigma, too.

I wonder if there's a book that covers the subject.

It isn't limited to small arms, tho.
>You yuros make the ASRAAM, we burgers make the AMRAAM, this way we have a nice shared program that gives work to everybody
>Alright Mr. USA, we've bought tons of your AMRAAMs, when are you gonna order some of our missiles?
>I've changed my mind, I'll stick to the Sidewinder :^)

>How about making the Roland the standardized nato SAM?
>No.
>But you don't even have a decent SAM platform, why are you leaving the project?
>Just no.

Whilst the EM-2 would've been a game changer and is still one of the most AESTHETIC guns ever, I can't help but feel confused. The French kept using their Mas-49/56s up until 1979, all chambered in 7.5mm, even though they were an original NATO partner. The British could've had the Em-2 at least relegated to a smaller yet present role in service, like how we kept using shit like .30 carbine into Vietnam and .45 ACP until the 1980s. Or am I just ragingly stupid for not knowing the political and military climate that lead to the Em-2 being canned? Or is Churchill to blame for submitting to that twat, Rene Studler?

Attached: Muhreen.jpg (684x492, 68K)

The French it is easy to understand. They needed every factory they could keep running inside their own borders. Buying foreign military weaponry while fresh out of five years of occupation was no small consideration. Add to that that they still had muscle in half of Africa and wanted to export, not import.

>Just that air superiority, armour
The Brits had virtually none of these after Dunkirk, Brit S-oy

>Or am I just ragingly stupid for not knowing the political and military climate that lead to the Em-2 being canned? Or is Churchill to blame for submitting to that twat, Rene Studler?
Churchill and his new government probably believed nato standardisation meant nato standardisation so everyone will adopt 7.62 so why shouldn't we
but as you pointed out things turned out differently and the em-2 was shelved until the l64/l65 which led to the l85 and l86 so we lost a potential total of around 30 years in rifle design
but at least the l1a1 slr fal was pure sex

Attached: Enfield_EM-2_6.jpg (864x430, 37K)

The french immediate post-war effort until the 1973 oil crisis is, without jokes or sarcasm, one of the greatest feats of socialism and planned economy there ever was.
And that included supporting national design bureaus and factories as much as possible.
(though they did make licenced copies of the SIG 540)

But more importantly, they had tons of 7,5mm ammo left from ww2 and their post colonial conflicts, even moreso as they were a mass conscription army, while the brits hadn't produced .280 in any significant quantity.

And that's why they spent money on it instead of rifles, genius.

O rly? Read much about the North Africa campaign?

>i feel if the em-2 wasnt cancelled we would have advanced further in rifle design
>even though i love the slr i feel the em-2 was revolutionary for the early 50s

I wouldn't go that far. The EM-2 was by no means a bad design, but in what it could do, there wasn't really anything new at all; safe for the integrated optical sight, which arguably was an improvement over all other main service arms of the time.
The bullpup design wasn't entirely new, but also hadn't really been made use of in a major way. Besides, if a bullpup design is an advantage to begin with has been the matter of many discussions; but it certainly isn't a groundbreaking disadvantage.
The cartridge did in hindsight definitely point more towards our current reality than the 7,62, so they reached that conclusion about a decade earlier than the US. However, it certainly was not the first time somebody had the idea to make a rifle with a less powerful cartridge in exchange for controlability, looking at the StG 44.
Integrating optics into every individual soldiers weapon was in my opinion the most advanced feature of the weapon, since that only became commonplace in the 2000's, so they got the basic idea right about half a century ahead of time, but as we all know, to no avail.

I also don't think it would have advanced rifle desgin as a whole much more than where we're at right now. There may have been different trends; but as it stands, most major armies of the world use technology that is decades old when it comes to how the weapons actually function.
The more out there and potentially revolutionary development that was done did away with cartridge based rifles all together, but we know how these experiments ended.

Attached: 1531296153369.png (798x960, 594K)

I'm no glockfag, but I'd trust the german handgunnade over the one manufactured by street shitters.
I don't think 1911 was an option for their tests, so I didn't say that instead.