British Weapons

This statement about the Tommy being a 1928 weapon is sort of true and sort of wrong. Throughout the War, the Thompson underwent design changes that would make it faster and cheaper to produce. The first change eliminated the finely machined Lyman rear gun site. It was replaced with a simple stamped "L" shaped battle sight; which would later have protective ears added to prevent the sight from be caught up in a soldiers clothing, belts and slings. Next the fancy checkering on the Fire Selector and Safety switches, and Actuator knob was eliminated. The smoothly finished barrel fins were left square cut, and eventually eliminated entirely. However, these changes were minor compared to the changes introduced by Savage.

Savage produced a completely remodeled gun in 1942. They eliminated the Blish lock (which had been proven to be unnecessary in a submachine gun) in favor of a straight Blowback design. This eliminated the separate actuator and "H" piece, and allowed the cocking knob to be mounted directly to the bolt. In this configuration the knob was moved from the top of the receiver to the right side. Other changes were made that: Permanently attached the buttstock to the receiver; Prevented drum magazines from being used; And removed the Cutt’s compensator.

The new gun was standardized in April 1942 as Submachine Gun, Caliber .45, M1. Later that year, in October 1942 the M1 Thompson was replaced with by M1A1. This version being simplified even further by eliminating the firing pin and hammer. Instead, a fixed firing pin was machined into the face of the bolt. By Spring of 1942 the cost reduction design changes had brought this production cost 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".

As for our M1911 .45 ACP, it too had a design improvement in 1926 and became known in the US Military as M1911A1. In 1926, following the recommendations of the US Army Ordnance Dept. These changes incorporated the following items:

1. Wider front sight
2. Longer hammer spur
3. Shorter trigger
4. Curved spring housing
5. Simplified grip panels checkering
6. Index finger reliefs behind the trigger
7. Longer grip-safety spur

It was such a good design that it served without interruption in the US military for sixty years in this configuration before being replaced by that M9 Barretta. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

And as to the other weapons that were introduced during the war years, don’t overlook the Garand’s little brother; the M1 .30 caliber Carbine. We made over six million of those between 1942 and end of the war.

In general, M1 Carbine was a really compact and handy weapon. It was lightweight and short enough to be more suitable for jungle combat, than a full-size battle rifles such as M1 Garand. It also offered relatively high practical rate of fire due to large-capacity, detachable magazines and low recoil. The M2 modification, which had a select-fire capability and a magazines of larger capacity (30 rounds, interchangeable with the older 15-round ones), could be described as an "almost an assault rifle" ("almost" is added due to the lack of effective range). Had Americans a little trouble to soup it up slightly in the terms of power and range, they could have a true assault rifle 20 years before they actually did, and probably with much less headache.

See:

Modern Firearms - M1 Carbine

And how about the M1941 Johnson semi-automatic rifle with its ten round rotary magazine? Compared to the M1 Garand the M1941 Johnson rifle had some good and some bad features. Good features were good accuracy, lesser recoil, and bigger magazine capacity with capability for reloading partially full magazine with loose cartridges. Bad features were a number of smaller parts which were easily lost during field stripping, and less available spare parts.

See:

Modern Firearms - Johnson m1941 semiautomatic rifle

Johnson M1941 and M1944 light machine gun, by the same man (Johnson) was introduced in those years respectively. It was rejected by the US Army as the BAR’s replacement in spite of its merits, such as it’s lighter weight, quick change barrel, and adjustable rate of fire which could be set between 300 - 900 rounds per minute. It just wasn't as robust as the old BAR.

The Dutch East Indies government placed orders for some M1941 LMG in 1941, but the East Indies were occupied by Japan before deliveries were completed, so the remaining stocks of the gun were purchased by the US Government and issued in limited numbers to Army Rangers and other special operations groups. Later in the war, Johnson developed an improved version of the LMG, known as M1944. This replaced the wooden buttstock with a tubular steel one, and the folding bipod with a telescoping monopod; it also found no luck in USA, but a copy was briefly made in Israel in the 1950s as the Dror LMG.

See:

Modern Firearms - Johnson M1941 and M1944 light machine gun

I thought the only weapon with a horizontal drum magazine was the Lewis gun, another American's invention.

 

Brian,

My late father would concur with you with regards to your comments on the PIAT.

He said it was almost impossible to cock it when lying prone and he once tried a shot on a knocked out Panzer in Italy, so it could possibly have been one of three tanks, Tiger, Panther or Mk IV.

Whichever, he said the round just bounced off at short range.

So much for confidence building!

Regards
Tom

 

Sorry but leaving the safety catch off isn't a fault of the weapon, thats just slack drills.

The thread has now gone far to techical for me.

Cheers
A

 

There is also the Korean War story of the Chinese officer who decided to strike a prisoner with the butt of a recently-captured Sten. The blow was sufficiently hard for the breech block to recoil, pick up a round and - bang - no Chinese officer. I wish I could reference that but I can't.

Horizontal drums: even the Bren had one of those, a 100-round one for the anti-aircraft role.

 

To continue on the PIAT, I got to know it pretty well when I became an Infantry Training Officer at Warley Barracks, Essex. The recruits had to fire it, as has been suggested, in the prone position. Before that they had to cock it holding it down the shoulder pad bit with your feet and pulling till it cocked, then the bomb was primed and put into the tray at the front ensuring the bomb was held in the clip at the back. One of our your Dutch lads got the tail piece back in his face when he hunched his shoulder in anticipation of the recoil. Porr lad.

Jim

 

The Army had already turned the Lanchester down flat years beforehand. They regarded it as far too heavy and cumbersome...and threw it towards the Royal Navy, who as very much the poor relation when it came to small arms was VERY glad of it!

 

I think thats what I've been trying to stress - it was better to get a weapon into the hands of the troops, any weapon rather than none at all. I think the mass-produced, cheap option was the only one available if we look at the situation in 1940. Hindsight is a great thing but we have to be mindful of what was possible industrially back then too.

Remember as well that for a long time the War Office and the Army resisted procuring and issuing SMG's, or 'gangster guns' as they called them. It seems that they went against the age old 'single, aimed shots' philosophy.

This reluctance to see that SMG's were useful for many situations led to a slowness in accepting them, and hence a mad scramble to make enough when it became clear that they would be needed.

 

A traditional trait of the British Soldier still alive and well today. They are never happy unless moaning about their kit or the lack of it (me included at times).

A

 

Driver-op Jim... Your memories of it are the same as mine. Ir was a real shocker

 

Thanks a lot for the info. I had actually thought that it might be a modified Bren.
Regards
Kruska

 

The LRDG and SAS didn't actually like the Bren in North Africa; apparently the "K" gun, or VGO (Vickers Gas Operated) as it was also known had a very low-friction locking design - which meant it was far less prone to jam from sand contamination

The larger magazine the "No.2 MkI" was nominally a 100-round magazine as opposed to the original "No.1 MkI"'s 60 rounds....but was more usually loaded with 96 or 97 rounds to extend the lifetime of the mag spring, which was prone to break (common complaint in British MGs this, eh? ), and the rate of fire COULD be adjusted from 1200rpm down to 950rpm, although a new gas plug on the very last model, the MkIV, allowed its rate of fire to be lowered to 700rpm; this was intended for armoured car use - but peace intervened.

 

I believe part of the problem may be in production methods...


To the veterans here, what was 'prefered' as a rifle, the Kar98, or the Enfields available? And if so, why? Just interested as debate in the pub the other day argued the extra 5 .303 rounds may well give you the edge?

Equally the PIAT is much maligned, but could it not fire a variety of different shells, and they did knock out tanks (as seen in War Diaries/after action reports), perhaps their main 'problem' asides kick was down to arguably poor ammunition standards?

 

There's another aspect of that to bear in mind - the HUGE rate at which the British and Dominion governments could turn out .303 Lee Enfields and .303 ammo of various types and charges. As well as the British, the Canadians were turning them out, and the Australians at Linlithgow.

There had been an attempt to move away from the .303 cartridge and the Lee action a few years before WWI - but events overtook intentions Maybe the British government took this on board in the interwar years, maybe they reckoned they were just by then TOO well tied into the .303 calibre....how many WWI production plants were RE-used in WWII? ... but it was certainly too much of a juggernaut to consider moving away from on the eve of ANOTHER world war!

 

The PIAT only fired one type of projectile, and that was loose in its tray. certainly it would take out a tank, but you paid with your life, that is pretty certain.

It was a bloody abortion of a weapon. You could not run with it .The bomb would fall out the tray. It was awkward to carry. Why we never lost ours "In action" I shall never know. To be effective you had yo get up very close to the objective. All it did was to lob the bomb by a spring loaded force..... YUK

If it did hit, it would burn a hole about an inch wide, with the explosive following through, spreading the occupants around like JAM
Cheers
Sapper

 

Crikey sapper, many thanks for that, (panzerfaust aside) would you rather have prefered the Bazooka or something along those lines despite its horrid backblast and giving away of your position? Or are those somewhat moot points when firing on a tank with it?

 

From my own research, I would say that the majority of British weapons seem to have been regarded highly or at least satisfactorily. The major weapons that were consistently criticised by the users were the Sten gun and the Crusader tank. The case against the Sten gun is overwhelming, although I think the reason for its production was more to do with the fact that it opened up non-specialised manufacturing capacity, rather than its cheapness. The PIAT was marmite - users either loved it or hated it. The Crusader would probably have been OK in Europe, but the desert exposed all its weaknesses.

Some of the support vehicles were strongly criticised. Nobody seems to have liked the Loyd carrier, while the lack of dedicated tracked artillery tractor seems to have been a notable omission.

 

This short YouTube clip on the PIAT is worth a look. I particularly liked the animation @40s which is the clearest explanation I have seen on how the PIAT worked.

The warning below comes from the 1943 training pamphlet and can hardly have inspired confidence.