Why didn't the British just adopt the Garand rather than sticking with the Enfield

Because it failed reliability tests.

imagine actually believing this

The UK was bankrupt and controlled by Socialists. The shit was so bad that food rationing lasted until the 1950s, sugar and chocolate was nearly impossible to get

OH MY Fuking Gawd, I almost fell for your sheeet

user, how is high school treating you? You seem like a tard if you actually believe this.

Because infantry rifles isnt what will would win the war.

If that money you could spend on Garands could be spent on fighter aircraft and bombers instead, you spend it on fighters and bombers.

British military command is notably retarded.
They're the ones behind the fuck up at Operation Market Garden.

Attached: NEGROES WITH STICKS.png (446x808, 198K)

Rationing wasn't because of socialism you fuckwit, it was that Britain had just fought a war and lost an empire. Socialism was what kept a quarter of the population from dying off in the aftermath. We did brilliantly out of WW2, Britain didnt.

Everything this guy said.

>best post in the thread

To add onto this, I remember reading somewhere that the bongs considered adopting the garand and put the rifle through some trials. At the end of them though they decided the garands were too underwhelming for procurement.

burger gettin his info from the movies again.

>We did brilliantly out of WW2, Britain didnt.
Yes because you put them in a massive amount of debt due to the lend lease scheme and didn't even come into the war to help them despite being allies until Pearl Harbor, letting them go bankrupt in 1940 despite their pleas for help (you were allies). You invested heavily in and helped with the economies of Germany and Japan after WW2 which is why those countries are so much better than the UK now.

It was literally impossible for the Axis to win WWII. Their goals were far too ambitious and they did not have the resources necessary to accomplish them.

America hastened the end of the war, yes. But Germany and Japan were bound to lose eventually.

Because they didn't have the money to buy them, .303 was a rimmed cartridge, and we didn't have the excess capacity to equip their army too.

Too much work to try and replace their primary service weapon while fighting from their back foot.

Lol yeah, Germany was winning.

Because the SMLE was already in everybody's hands and easily on par with everything else in Europe. They were looking into semiautomatic rifles as far back as WW2 but like most countries, hadn't found a satisfactory solution for their needs, wants and budget.

Look up Lend and Lease....

>americans saved their ass
>sold supplies to all factions
>including Germany and Japan
>embargo on Japan only started because they were striking civilian targets and Nanking got out
>Germany embargo only occurred because Churchill lobbied with the jewish community in the US to join Britain in the war in return for Israel being given as a Jewish state
>Britain was still laughing at Germany the entire time when their air campaign did fuck all to Britain while Britain's in return ruined their entire infrastructure,

America funded and fueled the early stages of both Germany and Japan's expansion. It then profited off the massive scam that was lend lease, something everyone should have laughed at the US for once the war was over in return for the trade with Germany. Same should have gone for Sweden, who did the fucking same.

The only reason the US couldn't even trade with Germany post 1939 was due to the Royal Navy ass fucking every non-Britain bound trade ship since the US was still trying to ship massive amounts of oil, food and metal to Germany even once they'd invaded and took over Poland.

The US was the largest proliferate and profiteer in WW1 and WW2, outside of the early Allied and Axis Powers, including fucking Russia. It's why the German economy screeched to a halt after Britain stopped the US trade since it couldn't fulfill the fuel or production requirements that the US supply of goods was providing.

>t. Butt hurt eurofag

British were never cut off from supplies.

>Britain got in the war in 1939, years before then Garand was ready.
You got the first part correct at least.

Garands started rolling off the line in 1938 retard.

>It then profited off the massive scam that was lend lease,
Lend lease to the Soviets were never paid back and lend lease to Britain was paid back in dubious currency such as the right to have US bases in Britain during the war.

>The only reason the US couldn't even trade with Germany post 1939 was due to the Royal Navy ass fucking every non-Britain bound trade ship since the US was still trying to ship massive amounts of oil, food and metal to Germany even once they'd invaded and took over Poland.
Uh no, US law since 1930 prevented trading with nations at war unless they were willing to pay in cash and provide their own shipping. Basically it was a thinly disguised embargo on any country fighting against Britain.

>gives soviets mountain of supplies
>doesn't pay it back

fyi it was soviet oil, training, and supplies that made g*rmany's early conquests so successful

Khrushchev thought that the Soviets would have lost without American (and British) aid. In hindsight, the US should have not sent that aid, and just nuked Germany after they dealt with the Soviets. Could have avoided the whole cold war. Of course, I can't blame FDR for not realizing how powerful nuclear weapons would be. Plenty of other things to hate him for.

Attached: krushchev_on_us_aid.png (1000x663, 542K)

Are you sure you aren't talking about destroyers for bases?

SOVIETBOOS BTFO
AMERIBOOS BTFO
WEHRABOOS VALIDATED. WEHRMACHT CONFIRMED FOR #1 ARMY

Attached: 1472695636437.jpg (700x661, 119K)

America should have joined earlier and took back France. Then ally with Germany against the commies but rossevelt was also a commie so whatever now we get 60% white country full of fags and our women getting raped by spics and niggers

Cos semi auto at the time was pointless also Brits like to focus on accuracy. There worst nightmare is running out of ammo in a fight the sa80 is a good example of the British thinking its the most accurate rifle in the EU NATO group. Also the m1 grand was not accurate as a smle

>this is the power of the American education system

>yes Britain actually controlled the US

>why didn't you die for us like we asked?

Dude are you me ?

>fights on one front against germany and balkan niggers
>barely even bombs them
>all friendly until Barbarossa
>WE WON DA WORLD WAR

>how dare you expect us to pay back the materials you sent us!
>how dare you fix the countries you bombed to shit!
>DIE FOR US!
>where’s our money!
>GIVE US YOUR MONEY!

Attached: 67ABA9D5-949A-4D65-9A98-D93C64CD9BB3.jpg (1934x1090, 1.15M)

>Then ally with Germany against the commies
what about all those jews and cripples they killed though aha
wouldn't they have been told to stop?

Produced untold thousands of spitfires, hurricane, lancaster's, etc
Can't produce a rifle
Pick one and only one

seriously fuck Italians fucking retards even betrayed us halfway threw the war

Food rationing was in place because Britain wanted to provide food relief to the rest of Europe, which they did. It was not strictly necessary.

No, much of lend lease was paid back in "reverse lend-lease" which was Britain providing land and some supplies to US military forces who were there to help Britain survive.

>Produce 10000 heavy bombers and 100,000 tried and tested bolt actions
>produxe 6000 heavy bombers and 100,000 fancy semi auto rifles.
pick one. Bomber Harris D O I N G I T was clearly the preferable course of action

I doubt the idea ever crossed their minds. "Why not?" is not a good question to ask of a military organization, since there is an infinite number of things a military organization isn't doing at any given time.

Because they had millions of them, it was good enough and infantry weapons are the least important piece of equipment. Most infantry never even fired an aimed shot at the enemy or even saw them except as dead or prisoners. Artillery and mortars were vastly more important for killing the enemy.

Because if we wanted Garands the greedy US would have extorted us for them.

Every bit of aid sent by the US was paid for at a ridiculous cost, see Destroyers for bases agreement, Tizard mission

Which is why we didn't tell them that the Japanese Navy was about to attack Pearl Harbour even though we knew they were going to several days before

British licensed MP-28s were called Lanchesters, not Lancasters.

>the greedy US would have extorted us for them.
The same US that gave you a trillion dollars of food and gear during and after WW2?
Suck a dik Globalist

You sound like someone who thinks you should thank the bank for 'giving' you a loan.

Attached: DD92C26B-7277-4E9F-935A-2D085CA3B106.gif (323x221, 208K)

Face it, Brits have been cucked since WW1

>The same US that gave you a trillion dollars of food and gear during and after WW2?

What, out of the goodness of your heart? Fuck off, that all became debt that we are still repaying.

Now I'm picturing a garand in 303.

It's making me a bit hard.

Why do Yuropoors not understand that they must pay debnts?

>how dare you expect us to pay you back!
>w-we cant pay that much!
>huge empire btw rule britannia
>pls gib money
The debt was payed about ten years ago and you formally thanked us for our wartime efforts. It's amazing that people still wonder why we call you europoors. The payback wasn't that large honestly you people are poor as shit

Attached: The Anglo Jew.png (402x434, 182K)

I think the American dinosaur should be significantly bigger than the German one.

1- The british presumably had an abundance of Enfeilds and Enfield ammo, and by god you're going to use them

2- there were units in the US that shipped with Springfield bolt actions because we couldn't even keep up with our OWN demand for M1 garands

3- The garand was, up to that point, unproven. It probably was deemed risky to switch, especially since that'd be a whole new manual of arms and armory learning

4- They were expensive, and Britain was already drowning in American debt (we were nice and didn't rape them with terms, but they were still in the deep side of the pool).

5- We had strategic resource concerns elsewhere, like the Manhattan project hogging something like 25% of the entire US power grid.

6- it's not like they were significantly outgunned, the Germans, Japanese, and Russians at the onset of the war still largely relied on bolt guns too

7- sten was far, far cheaper and easily made domestically rather than relying on US manufacturing and shipping times

The US kept at least a degree of rationing in place after the war too. EVERYONE was short on resources, especially when we were planning WW3 while the bodies were still rotting.

Rifles don't really matter. Germany could have been given 10,000 M16s or AKs from Vietnam back in 1940, including all the tooling necessary to make them on their own, and it wouldn't have made much difference in the end. A few thousand-50k more dead slavs, brits, and americans? Sure. Kick off the intermediate cartridge kick early? Sure. Change how the war was fought? Nah.

Wars aren't won by a rifle. They are won by either:
a- defeating your enemy, whether that means kill, outmaneuver, wound, or not is contextual
b- depriving your enemy of resources to defeat you before you defeat them
c- they surrender, usually due to B.

Cut off doesn't mean that we were not getting the required amount, its all very well saying the body needs a certain amount of calories and you can transit food to support hat but if you don't meet that required amount you may as well be cut off.

are you having a stroke lad

>Imperial fuckton
I fucking love what you did there.

the short answer to your question is that the US lost it's ass in WWI sharing it's armories with allies and wasn't going to repeat that in WWII
also, 100% of production capacity was being used to equip the US military and there wasn't anything left to share
in 1945 it was still the best and most advanced small arm ever used in warfare and the US didn't want samples of it ending up in enemy hands to be used against them
there's a lot more to the story but that's the highlights

This is either bait or the most retarded post i have ever seen on this board, I pray to god its the former.

Attached: YpY4jxC.jpg (750x706, 315K)

probably lol, my intention was to use the supply of food as an example, britain could of been getting 200 twinkie bars a week in shipping from what survived of the early merchant fleets voyages and thus the supply chain isn't cut off, my point was that your bloody well going to struggle to supplement existing food supply's with only 200 Twinkie bars thus it doesnt matter that some are getting through you need a set amount, (what I said applys to petrolium, octane fuel for aircraft, food raw materials, wool etc etc the list goes on, this is why Churchill deemed u-boats such a threat, given enough time Reinhard could of bled Britain dry and took us out of the war.

Tgere was a chance, however remote, that Case Blue could have succeeded. Not very likely, but if it had there is a very real possibility they could have taken the soviets. Many if not most of their woes from 1941 onwards could be traced back to oil shortages.

Britain paid off that debt in full including interest only recently, merchant you are my greatest ally.

This post triggers the euro

This