Is there a reason the British didn't design a semi-automatic

>>34421658
No need to. UK was a naval power and didn't foresee too much combat on the mainland.

>>34421682
Is that all? That seems like very weak reasoning in my uneducated opinion

>>34421658
Developing and rolling out a new rifle to frontline units is a massive pain in the ass and they figured it'd be easier to just keep shitting out SMLE's for the time being.

They were also poorfags after WW1.

>>34421658
They were too broke and uninterested. While they'd experimented with semi auto rifles on and off since 1900, they could never find the money or the will. Just look at the lackadaisical approach to the adoption of the Lee Enfield.

>>34421759
WWI cost them an incredible amount of money, so spending more on developing the least useful branch of their military with unnecessary upgrades seemed extravagant.
Then WWII happened. They didn't pay off that debt til 2006, and that was with highly favorable rates and lots of debt forgiveness.

>>34421658
>Couldn't afford it. Brittain absolutely was 150% dependent on the US for aid during the war.
>For awhile it really looked like Brittain was gonna be fighting a defensive battles on the mainland. Marksmen with top notch rifles, entrenched in their own countryside, would be more than enough.
>Brits were expecting Uncle Sam to do the dirty work for them in exchange for use of their fancy boats

>>34421658
Practical, aimed rate of fire isn't too much different from your average 8-10 round semi-auto, and they already had hundreds of thousands of perfectly good SMLEs in service already, so there was no reason to change away from them.

Having a decent, man-portable machine gun was a higher priority; it made more sense to spend what little money was available on a new weapon like the Bren, not on updating a tried and true design.

>>34421759
Britain had a long history of winning wars primarily by cutting of the enemy's trade and ruining them economically.

>>34421887
>Practical, aimed rate of fire isn't too much different from your average 8-10 round semi-auto

this right here is nonsense. every time you have to work the bolt it ruins your sight picture, and re-acquisition of said sight picture often takes more time that the act of working the bolt.

a semi-auto rifle rifles dispenses with working the bolt entirely, and significantly reduces the time needed to re-acquire the sight picture.

Out of all of the bolt actions in the war the SMLE was the fastest and smoothest to use. A 10 round capacity made it able to keep up with most semi automatics. You could get rapid enough fire with a full sized cartridge using an SMLE.

Like previously mentioned. Light and mobile machine guns were a little more important, i.e the Bren and Lewis

>>34421658
There were some attempts but military old guard and the admiralty in particular were uninterested in some modern fashion gimmicks. Revolvers an bolt action were sufficint and slower reloading/rate of fire ensured that ammunition wouldn't just be wasted by the troops.

rifle fags insisted that one should re-acquire sight pic with each shot regardless of semi or bolt. purists. and plus the brits were churning out tons of nifty sub guns to somewhat fill the gap.

>>34421658

Doctrine.

File: Aussiebane.jpg (90KB, 928x696px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 928x696px

>>34421856
>Brits were expecting Uncle Sam to do the dirty work for them
>this is what Americans actually believe

>>34422013
>every time you have to work the bolt it ruins your sight picture
You...you've never fired a No.4, have you?

>>34421658
It was because they were producing a silly number of NO.4s a day, and they weren't willing to stop or slow production for something that may or not be better. Because to No.4 and SMLE were getting the job done.

>>34421830
>uninterested. While they'd experimented with semi auto rifles on and off since 1900,
they were interested, but weren't willing to loose money developing projects when the money was required to build rifles.

>>34421856
>Couldn't afford it. Brittain absolutely was 150% dependent on the US for aid during the war.
Britain gave lend lease to russia, and had so much oil for war use they had to burn off quite a lot of it.
>>For awhile it really looked like Brittain was gonna be fighting a defensive battles on the mainland. Marksmen with top notch rifles, entrenched in their own countryside, would be more than enough.
>>Brits were expecting Uncle Sam to do the dirty work for them in exchange for use of their fancy boats
If anything it was the other way round.

>>34422013
> ive never touched an Enfield: the post

>>34422087
>plus the brits were churning out tons of nifty sub guns to somewhat fill the gap.
Uh, no, the brits had a critically small amount of subguns at the start of the war. They didn't start churning out stens until after they realized "oh fuck, we could have jerry on the island in a couple months"

>>34422013
>ruins sight picture
>not fast
Confirmed for never shooting an Enfield. This aint your qt trap gf's Mosin you cuck. Enfields demand respect and pay you back in rapid, accurate fire

money , more precisely the lack of it

>>34421856
you actually believe this?
is this what they are teaching you in schools nowadays?

1. Time and money when the enfields worked fine
2. At the start of the war the enfield already had a deeper mag and faster fire rate and they didn't fully understand that technology evolves
3. Bolt actions are gentlemanly
4. Full auto spills their tea

>>34421658
Probably the same reason the UK went into WW2 without an SMG.

>>34423079
they had m1928s in 1937.

>>34422878
>Enfield
>Accurate

>>34423094
> Don't use cheap ammo made in india in 1930s
> Get the rifling re done
> sort head spacing out
Some of them things have been through two world wars, and numerous smaller conflicts, and potentially fired tens of thousands of rounds.

You sort that out and you get a good No.4 with the nice rear sights and they'll shoot with the best of them.

>>34421658
Because retooling all the factories and replacing a couple of million rifles during a war is impossible, and before the war they had other priorities.

Small arms do not win wars.

>>34421658
Why would they?

They just waited for daddy USA to come save them and the Soviets to do 95% of the fighting.

>>34423094
Another fag who's never shot or owned an enfield. Fag.

>tfw bong
>tfw starting gun licence procedures
>tfw already paid for. H&H Enfield
Rather excited lads

>>34423121
>small arms do not win wars
You are getting into shaky grounds there senpai
Even if artillery gets most of the casualties if all wars were based on numbers all wars would be that of ww1
>>>34423321
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting

>>34423587
It doesn't really matter what rifle your average infantryman has. The eupport weapons, armour, air and most importantly of all, logistics, make much more of a difference.

You can have the best rifle in the world, and it won't help you if a tank comes through your position and your own armour is stuck at the railyard, or buried under the burning remains of the factory.

>>34421658
They decided to focus their effort into more important arms.

>>34421658
British Army had fuck all resources to do so.

The US was the only nation to field large quantities of semi-auto rifles during the war. Sure there was the Gew.43 and the SVT, but they were a rarity in their respective armies compared to the Kar98 and Mosin. The only reason the US managed to field the M1 in such numbers is that procurement began before the war, and the Marine Corps was STILL using 1903's until mid-1942. I say this not to toot the America horn, but to point out that even the nations that did develop semi-auto rifles didn't issue them in quantity (besides the US).

Arming men en masse with semi-auto rifles wouldn't have made a difference due to proliferation of SMGs. The Enfield was a good enough rifle and the gains to be had from issuing a semi-auto were less than ramping up STEN and BREN production.

>>34421658
Right before WW1 they developed pattern 14 rifle, which you know as Enfield M1917(it's chambered in different cartridge tho). Still a repeater, but much better one.

After WW1 they acknowledged the superiority of other rifles as well as the idea that semi-auto>repeater but then they looked at their relatively limited budget and asked themselves. Will we adopt new rifle and cut on trucks/artillery/things that actually matter OR will we keep the Enfield until it gets badly outdated. Well the answer was simple.

>>34425004
>Sure there was the Gew.43 and the SVT
By 1941 there were more SVT's in existence than there were Garands.

>>34425004
There were about 2,000,000 SVTs fielded in WW2.

>>34425248
For a short time. Then SVT production pretty much stopped, and Garand production took off into the millions.

>>34425267
>Garand production took off into the millions.
Just like SVT's then.

The difference is that SVT's are relatively less visible because many of them were lost/destroyed and on top of it - the scale. American Army was enormous by the end of WW2, right? Well, Russians had about 7 times as big of a force.

>>34422446
>>34422595
>>34422878
>muh mad minute

Garand had roughly double the rate of fire of an SMLE. Sorry if that rustles your jimmies.

>>34425284
Izhevsk was ordered to stop production in 42. Production went from 1 million to 1/4 that.

>>34425501
Izhevsk wasn't the only plant that made them. Also 1942 is the date when they've stopped making SVT's... in sniper version(kinda like M14, it's hard to make it beyond riflemen-level accurate)

In total, by 1945(when it was replaced by SKS) 1.6 million SVT's were made.

File: Farquhar-Hill Rifle.jpg (43KB, 1600x332px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1600x332px

>>34421658
They had. The initial production-order was for 100,000. The war ended and contract cancelled before they could too-up for production. As a result, only a few hundred of the pre-production rifles exist.

Pic related.

By the time WWII came around, the Bren combined with the new cheaper to make but just as good No.4 MK.I Lee-Enfields meant that there wasn't really much of a need for a semi-auto rifle.

Jobs that the Semi-Auto rifles at the time were being used for was better served by an LMG or an SMG (like the Sten).

>>34425597
And Springfield and Winchester made just over 4 million M1's before the end of WW2. So more than double, this is not counting post war production.

>>34425758
tool-up*

Back then they thought semi-auto rifles were a meme

>>34423578

H&H?

>>34425284

Also most of them are probably in Russia, while Garands are mostly here.

>>34425248
>>34425265

Compared to what, 15 million mosins?

>>34425869
I'd say garands are about 1/2 in civillian hands/cmp warehouses and 1/2 in the hands of foreign allies

>>34425284
if I had to hazard a guess I'd say your average russian infantryman had a mosin or a subgun

SVTs were not common for most of the war, sure they were mass produced for a bit but compare mosin/subgun numbers to SVT numbers

>>34425869
H&H is Holland & Holland. A prestigious, high quality and expensive British gun manufacturer

>>34425814
semi-auto rifles are a meme for anyone but civilians or marksmen

Have you seen their uniforms during ww2? Compare their uniforms to German uniforms and then think about the question you've asked.

>>34425413

Literally no one mentioned the mad minute. All they did was correct someone who said you have to break cheek weld to work the bolt. You sound butt hurt. Did an Enfield hurt your little girl shoulders?

>>34426754
i see more PPSh-41 in old pics than svt's

>>34426794
British uniform is aesthetic son

>>34426794
British uniforms were actually practical, and could be used in cold weather.

>>34426794
British uniforms were practical, so much so that the Germans started copying em late in the war. U-Boat crews also used captured British uniforms.

Well you see old chap it just wouldn't be sporting to allow multiple repeated shots, encourages poor marksmanship in the soldier too! Waste of ammo rah!

>>34427497
>>34427530
>>34427669
Samefag lul

File: newfag btfo.jpg (17KB, 433x138px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 433x138px

>>34428522

>>34423357
>Rear locking lugs

>>34428656
>What is ms paint

>>34428685
Better for in mud than front locking lugs

File: b8.jpg (55KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x500px

>>34428814

>>34421658
They had a semi auto that was adopted in small numbers in ww1 forgotten weapons did a video on them

>>34426769

Did they make SMLEs?

>>34422013
lol
come back after you fire a no.5

>>34422426
>>34422582
>>34423054
>Angry Brits bootyblasted because their convoys fucking sucked

>>34430493
Not that I'm aware of but it wouldn't surprise me if they did a story part of the war effort. I think that they did the conversions and upgrades for SMLEs to be used by snipers.
Not too sure mate sorry.

>>34421658
basically because the LeeEnfield was a fast cycling bolt action to be used en masse and fired accurately at long range , also Vickers & Lewis guns existed.

>>34421830
too broke ? the British Empire too broke in the 1920s and 1930s ?

>>34425760
Yes, a greater industrial power that wasn't invaded could produce more rifles. I know this is a shocking revelation.

>>34421658
too busy trying to keep Fritz from pushing their turds in and begging Uncle Sam for help

>>34431419
Yes. This may be surpring but WW1 cost a lot of money.

>>34422013
>every time you have to work the bolt it ruins your sight picture

I've shot an Enfield and this is only true if you're left-handed.

Fuck my life.

>>34431460
Which Germany was paying post Treaty of Versailles

>>34431474
You think Germany paid for all of Britain's war debts? And you think they paid them in a few years?

>>34421658
Rimmed cartridge
"mad minute" ethic
Britain lacking talent at gun design and understanding this hanging back on curve resorting to copy or licence Czech (Bren), Swiss (Oerlikon, HS), German (Lanchester), US (Lewis) designs.

File: 1323558233491.jpg (661KB, 1247x1081px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 1247x1081px

>>34423093
Like, 3. Maybe 4. They expected Lee's to get the job done and saw little use in subguns.

>>34423605
>armour
>armour
Are you allowed to discuss weapons, Nigel? Isn't it about tea time anyways?

>>34431513
Every time I see the thumbnail of that pic I assume they're holding lee enfields, but now that I've had a closer look it looks like they're holding either M1917, P13, or p14 enfields while using WW2 kit. What gives?

>>34431490
you know that Germany got massive loans from Switzerland to pay its Great War debt right ?

>>34431533
Fuck. No idea. I just assumed they were Lees. Guess it makes sense that assuming only ever makes an ass out of you and me.

>>34431533

Maybe training? Especially in late '40, early '41 when they were re-arming after Dunkirk. Bust out any old guns that still work.

>>34431474
The treaty of Versailles killed Germany. Aren't you aware that people were loading wheelbarrows full of cash to buy loaves of bread and burning money was cheaper than buying wood.

Germany was cunted. A lot of their war debt was forgiven I believe, though that may be incorrect and somewhere I read that they hadn't paid it off in full until post 2000.

They certainly hadn't paid anything substantial if anything at all before 1933.
>>34431527
Everyone is welcome. Don't shun someone because they aren't American. They're unlucky they don't have access to the same stuff. It's good to see that there's an interest and maybe eventually they could spread the word of the cube and make progress in their country.

File: 1498690983393.gif (1MB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 540x540px

>>34421658
Actually they did.

With that rifle you posted op.

https://youtu.be/oOgw59_lt7o
https://youtu.be/U682yOpNafg

>>34432511
*Why do you think they had massive inflation and the reason for the wheelbarrows of money ?

>>34432511
Just bantz, bruv. I think it's good they're interested.

>>34422013
/k/ likes to pretend that lees are nearly equal to semi autos in terms of fire rate and ease of use. While it wont be as bad as many bolt actions, you are right. Rapidly throwing your hand forward and backward to hit nearly straight pull speeds is not conducive to accuracy.

>>34432564
Maybe because they purposefully ruined their own economy to avoid paying reparations.

>>34421658
They had prototypes and designs but nothing radical enough to retool and rearm the entire army, any such plans were then dashed by WW2.

>>34421887
>Having a decent, man-portable machine gun was a higher priority
True. And it's a good thing they had the Bren. That gun literally wins wars.

File: olaf, get the axe.png (218KB, 386x383px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 386x383px

>>34436135
Lindy pls go.