Printable View
Someone on this forum must have the definitive answer to this question:
What was the specific reason(s) for the British Government not transitioning from the Lee Enfield to the P14? There are all sorts of assumptions I can make to justify staying with the Lee Enfield, but I'd rather know the real, unadulterated reason for that decision.
Keith
Probably because the Lee had just seen us through a world war and we had millions of them on hand, plus all the associated spares and training pamphlets etc.
It wasn't just about the British army at that time. What about the Indians, the Australians and the Canadians?
WE WERE SKINT!!!
Does the OP mean before, or after the war?
The P-13 in .27 cal or there abouts was the next one up, in 1913. But the world war in 1914 came on, and you fight the war with the rifle you have, not the rifle on the drawing board. There was neither the time nor money to change all the production and rifles.
The P-14 was built in the states and was an adjunct to the rifle supplies on hand.
I have a P-14, No.1 MkIII, and No.4 MkI displayed in my office in a 3-stack. Comparing the three, and remembering a little of the history:
The Brits didn't want to change ammo so the P-14 was adopted to use .303Quote:
Originally Posted by limpetmine
The Brits didn't want to change production lines in the middle of the war, so the SMLE was produced in Britain, but the P-14, which needed complete new machinery and equipment to manufacture, could be set up in the U.S. (What most of us don't realize, as well, the Germans were doing aerial bombing of London in WWI, along with war-time shortages, thus having alternative sources of supply outside the UK made sense.)
If we take the set-up of the Savage Plant in Chicopee, Massachusetts in WWII as an example of using an existing plant with a trained work force to produce a new rifle, it still took nearly a year before all the systems (machinery, equipment, supply chain, trained staff, quality control, etc) could produce at full capacity (and the Savage ramp-up started several months before the supply shortages began in December, 1941.)
When the US entered the war in 1917, the U.S. just didn't have enough rifle manufacturing capacity either, so it shifted the existing P-14 plants in the U.S. to make the Model 1917, chambered in .30-06. By that time, the 1 Winchester plant and the 2 Remington plants producing P-14s had augmented the supply of munitions sufficiently to keep Commonwealth forces fully supplied with existing UK production.
The battle field experience our Doughboys had with the Model 1917 was that it was: 1) accurate, 2) too heavy @ 10 1/2 pounds, and 3) too long (especially when equipped with a sword-like bayonet). These are some of the key reasons why the M-1 Garand was developed before WWII. When the US entered WWII, we didn't have enough M-1 Garands, so the GIs were issued what was available from WWI stores: Springfields and M-1917 until production could be ramped up on the Garands.
After WWI, it took the UK until 1939 to approve the No.4 MkI, which, when you look carefully, takes a lot of its queues from the P-14, just smaller at 9 1/4 pounds, shorter by couple of inches, using a lighter version of the P-14 receiver with a mounted rear sight, using a shortened version of the P-14 muzzle configuration (no SMLE bulldog nose, but lightening the P-14 cast nose cap with a stamped version), adapting the P-14 hand-guard configuration, but keeping the SMLE 10 round mag, firing pin/striker, and bolt-on butt into a receiver ring/socket. That's why there are so few parts of a SMLE that can be used in a No.4.
Hope this helps. I'm sure others have other points to add.
AFAIK the UK wanted the US to produce the SMLE, which they declined. And since they were looking for a rifle in .303 caliber, the P.13 was adopted to this caliber.
There is still so much unknown on the history and development of the P.13/P.14/M1917, one of the best rifle designs in WWI and also highly precise. Especially in the UK many trials rifles were done, like with folding bayonet, SMLE nose cap, SMLE style bolt, semi automatic conversions, bullpup conversions, etc.
The Mauser design was essentially copied to produce the P'13 in .276 rimless high velocity calibre. The idea was that it would replace the SMLE but AFAICR there were a lot of problems with bore fouling & erosion with the high velocity ammo. These problems hadn't been solved by the time war broke out. With the consequent huge rise in the demand for the current (SMLE) service rifle, as well as all the other impedimenta required to fight a world war, there simply was not enough factory capacity in the UK to produce the P'14 (now in .303" the same as the SMLE). I believe this is why the at the time still neutral US was approached to manufacture the new rifle. As is often the case, by the time P'14s started to arrive in the UK in quantity the worst of the supply problems had been solved, & there were at least enough SMLE's to keep the front line troops equipped.
From what I have seen written the P14 timing was un-lucky as WW1 broke out before it had really been accepted and issued. There also seems to have been considerable politics going on where some didnt like the rimless ammo etc etc Plus the SMLE is a great short range battle rifle and the P14 not so much so more of a long range gun.
What "confuses" far more me is after WW1 and all the dis-advantages of the SMLE were well known is why we ended up with a no4 of the same design heritage and problems and not a "Pattern 1920". or even why when the 6.5mm or 7mm in rimless were shown to be better rounds we stuck with the 303 rimmed.
SSJ, this is a highly relevant and insightful question, and it seems so vexing from the perspective of the 21st century. But the prevailing view in the 1920s & '30s was quite different. Given the horrible carnage on the battlefields, everyone at that time referred to the "Great War" as the "war to end all wars." (No one called it WWI then.) Disarmament was the prevailing belief of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj
Thus, anyone who proposed an escalation of armaments would be severely disdained. Senior military leaders, sitting atop their rarified hierarchy, tend to have a know it all attitude, and regard those of lower rank with a jaundiced view. Any innovator in the middle ranks of command had better have a powerful "godfather" to protect his views and stripes from "attack by friendly fire." Just look at the Court Martial of Billy Mitchell in 1925 as an example.
By 1930, the Great Depression consumed the energies of every world leader except Adolf and ToJo, then Benito who took a far more aggressive stands. But as late as 1938, world leaders still believed there would never be another war. Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Accords in late 1938 believing Hitler's annexation of portions of Czechoslovakia would be the end of aggression.
The entire Munich debacle was debunked by Winston Churchill, whose opinion held minority status at the time. His response was prophetic: "England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war." A year later Hitler stormed into Poland, then struck France, followed by the Battle of Britain. The illusion (delusion) of the "War to End All Wars" was shattered.
Only then, once the crisis had struck, were questions of advanced armaments considered in earnest. That's when technological advancement shifted into high gear. That's why the No.4 Mk1 is approved in 1939 -- there was no more time left for endless testing, debate, and bureaucratic dallying.
In the end, WWII is the only war in history where the principal weaponry that won the war did not exist before the war: Radar, Computers, Proximity Fuses, Atomic Bomb, etc. It's hard to understand in hindsight, but easy understand at the time, when military leaders, seasoned on the field of battle in the last war, and second-guessing their own strategies and tactics, as well as those of their opponents, are readying to refight the last war, not the future war. Likely the victor will think "bigger and more of the same," while the vanquished "changes the rules of the game."
Even with the pressure of war, strange decisions were made. For example, Frank Whittle invented the jet engine in Britain in the mid-1930s. The Germans had their first prototype jets flying in 1939. Britain's first jet prototypes were flying in 1941. But why were Allied jets not a factor in the war?
Thus your question is still highly relevant -- and still vexing to answer.
My theories on why it wasn't adapted are pretty simple.
It is heavy, very heavy for a bolt action military rifle.
At this time period everyone was used to 'V' notch sights, and didn't want to use aperture sights (personally I have the same mindset myself I shoot way better with a 'V' notch), this problem was also shown in WWII with the No. 4 Mk. 1s as the already trained troops didn't want to use apertures.
The P14 was made in the States, not Britain (still very imperialistic/nationalistic mindset at this point), and they didn't use common parts as a P14 made by Winchester couldn't use Remington parts etc.
Massive stocks of Lee Enfields were on hand, which Britain already had the tooling set up for (and some of the colonies/commonwealth nations as well).
The P14 is a fantastic rifle, and can easily hold its own with contemporary rifles. It just happened at the wrong point of time in history. It is also pretty funny that the M1917 almost became the American standard rifle after they technically wrote off roughly 1 million 1903s due to poor heat treating.
The P-14, or, actually, its predecessor, the P-13, came into being because a bunch of “learned gentlemen” deemed the SMLE and its cartridge “inadequate” for serious long-range work. Bear in mind that, at the time, the old slow, Mk6 was the “ammo du jour”. Some of these characters were probably responsible for ditching the P-88 inspired P-03 bayonet and going for the Arisaka-inspired P-07, complete with hooked quillon. The rifle was seen primarily as an extension stick for holding a pointy thing to use in “real” combat. The “spirit of the pike” died hard; along with a LOT of young men.
And so came to pass, the abominable P-13 and its outrageous .280 cartridge. Probably inspired by the .280 Ross and similar “modern” cartridges of the day, the .280 “service” cartridge was not exactly “gentle” on rifles or their operators.
Because of the use of “tried and true” Cordite, major issues of accelerated bore erosion, ludicrous muzzle flash and blast, not to mention recoil, soon arose.
With a “modern” (even in those days) granular nitro-cellulose propellant, some of the erosion and flash would have been reduced.
It would not be until the late 1920s, with the advent of “slow” powders developed for the Browning .50 MG round, that such suitable propellants would be available.
The actions on the South African Veldt may well have been an additional influence. But, even here, the reality was not always as published in the “Times”.
Those pesky “farmers’ were often using a motley assortment of antiquated rifles alongside the rightly famous 7mm Mausers. They also used their small supply of medium and heavy machine-guns somewhat more imaginatively than the Brits and allies. Good tactics with inferior equipment is the hallmark of an effective force in “irregular” warfare. The Boer “marksmen” had a reputation for being able to “reach out and touch” any target they desired. What a lot of people forget is that, by the end of this unpleasant show, most of the Boers were doing this with Lee Enfields, “liberated” from their foes and kept fed in the spirit of, “let your enemy be your Quartermaster”.
The “concept”, such as it was, behind such a “super rifle’ as the P-13 was finally swept away by the grim realities of WW1. The cartridge may well have been useful for “bashing-in” armoured vision ports in opposing treches. However, it would have been an abomination in the hands of the average Tommy. That it originally came with a set of “volley” sights is more evidence that the designers had not been keeping up with Mr. Maxim and his toys, nor the influence of them on the battlefield.
The sighting system was not all that bad; the massive “ears” protected the rear-sight assembly quite well, but the “battle” aperture could have been a bit bigger; a feature that “evolved” on the Mk 6 / No4 series.
Finally: the ability to change the butt assembly on ANY Lee Enfield to accommodate soldiers of different statures, was an enormous boon in a army of millions that included “the long and the short and the oddball”, not to forget the huge advantage of simplifying the actual wood supply and repairs / maintenance.
The P 14 was only a stop gap. WW2 put paid to bolt action rifles as the main arm for the soldier. WW1 came to early for the P 13 to go into production hence the P 14. The P 14 is to long to heavy for any thing except sniper work as well as being to costly and time costly to manufacture.
Where did you get that idea from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglelord17
Each factory produced parts from their own designs, leading to interchangeability issues, until they all adopted the P14* standard. There are actually 4 main manufactured models of P14s, P14W, P14R, P14E, and P14*. The letter following the designation was the factory that manufactured it (i.e. W was Winchester, R was Remington, and E was Eddystone).Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage hunter
This is only referring to the manufactured models, not those updated to things like Weedon standard.
It may have a ring of truth to it but information found at Wikipedia is not to be relied on as being 100% accurate. If you look they only list 2 references, I don't have Hatchers Notebook but I do have Hesketh-Pritchard's and page 239 doesn't even mention a P14.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglelord17
Nearly all is exchangeable, AFAIK only very early Winchester P.14 rifles had non-interchangeable parts with other manufacturers (what was also the reason for officially chosing only the Winchester rifle for sniper useage).
I remember when the UK introduced the spike bayonet the question arose, whether this bayonet was capable of penetrating a German winter coat - and that was still in officially peaceful times. So to claim that noone wanted war and everyone was thinking of peace by disarming might not be that correct.
For members who are unfamiliar with the 1913 Trials Rifle mentioned, check out the MKL for an nice article about it.
Pattern 1913 "Trials" Rifle (.276 in.) (click here) - 137 pic virtual tour
http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG
http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd.../276%20pkt.jpg
Regards,
Doug
Don't matter England did not have any rifles so had to find all from her colonies aussie land included so I guess the thought was if my rifle is going I might as well bleeding well go to,,,,
We did not have much of either but we gave them both and really walloped ém a goodun" but by heck they gave us a right pasting as well.
If Mustafa Kemal Attaturk had not commanded them and we got onto the right beach then it would have been us slaughtering them though we did do a grand job of each other in May I think:surrender:
While we (Western Europeans,Pre-British Empire (You "Yanks" eh!) and "commonwealth" English speakers) think of WWI as ending in November 1918, war did not end for Central and Eastern Europe; In 1920 the (not yet stabilized) world was awash with small arms. Russia and central and eastern Europe was in various civil and wars of independence (Ireland, Ukraine, Poland, Finland, Red & White Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia ect.) and when you have 3 million P14s and 4 Million Enfields, and Billions of rounds of ammo in store for your 150,000 man peace time military it really doesn't make much sense to make an expensive change of material and training.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj
Exactly the same reasoning Macarthur used to kybosh the .276 Pederson cartridge... (which would have been close to what is today considered the "ideal cartridge")
Also 2 really good reasons for not adopting the P13 and .276 cartridge was related to the fact that 7Remington Magnum does not make a very good combat cartridge...way too much recoil...and pressure, resulting in at best in "sticky" extraction.
At the point in time of development, Britain had armed forces on all continents (Shackleton was on the Antarctic in 1913/14) and weather conditions. The .276 was a cartridge on the edge of a "pressure excursion" due to the "fast" powders and limited heat stability of the powders of the day.
After all, a war cartridge has to work in Northern Europe, India, Singapore jungles and African deserts in primitive storage conditions & exposures.
And, the cartridge itself is huge! I have a single round, but I also have the 5 round stripper clip charger....the cartridge base makes 300win mag look like a kiddy toy...
I like to refer to it as a "modified Mauser" because it cocks on closing.
Lots of Mausers cock on closing. The P13 and its offspring have more in common with the '93 Mauser than with the '98 - no third bolt lug, internal receiver collar, or flanged sleeve; same sear interruptor, cock-on-close feature.
It would seem that the “learned gentlemen” who designed the P-13 / P-14 had looked closely at Gebruder Mauser’s efforts, but had somehow missed their masterpiece, the ’98.The one thing they DID get "right" was to provide helical locking surfaces in the breech, a la the Lee Enfield.
It gets better.
In the late 1930s, the “Ainley” rifle briefly appeared on the scene. See pages 94-96 of Ian Skennerton’s “British Sniper” book.
A sort-of “Gucci” P-13: Integral scope base, miniature Mk1 Bren-style rearsight, same dog-legged bolt handle, recoil-buffer springs in the butt, tunnel foresight protector/housing, integral scope “base”.
Specified muzzle velocity of 3700 ft/sec. (obviously NOT in .303 ).
One would hope that the "learned gentlemen" were actually thinking along the lines similar to those that have taken the .300 Win and the awesome .338 Lapua onto the battlefield: A VERY specialist rifle.
Only a handful of prototypes, (one of which went to Canada and now resides in Oz), were made and the project was abandoned by 1940. I had a quick fondle of an/the Ainley when it arrived in Oz, before shipping to its new "owner". The BSA SMLE in .276 Pederson was kinda cute, too.
Got anymore info on this B i OQuote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
All I remember was that it looked just like a standard BSA SMLE, but the hole down the middle of the barrel looked a bit small.
I vaguely recall that it was marked " .276" somewhere, but can't be sure.
As it was unlikely to be chambered for the Ainley cartridge, I took a stab and went home and rifled, so to speak, through what passed for my cartridge collection. I fished out my one example of a .276 Pederson cartridge and went back to the rifle.
Sure enough, the round dropped neatly into the chamber and the bolt closed (carefully) on it.
Best guess was that some SMLEs were set up as ammo "test beds" as a part of the Vickers Pederson rifle development project. There was a Vickers Pederson that looked like it had just rolled off the production line floating around Brisbane back then; those were the days!
Magazine in this .276 SMLE appeared to be standard .303, so, essentially, single-shot
Such a rifle also have been an early look at producing a "second-line" rifle in what was potentially the "new Service cartridge". A similar concept was the Lithgow 7.62 NATO beast based on a No.6 Trials rifle that was "modified" to take the early-pattern FAL mag.
Well, as we're already by the topic: have you also seen one of those (like attached) before? Note the detachable SMLE magazine :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
PS: With the rifle in Oz, are you referring to the large collection which was somewhen unfortunately sold off (does someone know who has this rifle now)? Wonder where the rest of the Ainley rifles are..
Actually, as you mention, I believe that they looked at both the '93/'95 (which they experienced in SA) and the '98 (which was being flogged to all and sundry).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
I believe that they considered it superior to the M.98, P14/17 is an improved Mauser 1893/95, but modified as it partially cocks on opening, and completes the action upon closing.
Haven't read all of this bumph but regarding non interchangeability of components between different P'14 manufacturers, there is a whole page devoted to the non interchangeable parts and semi-interchangeable 'with adjustments' in a 1939 reprint of a 1920 Armourers handbook issued when the war broke out and the rifles were being issued out again. So we were aware early on the some component parts issued as replacement spares were NOT interchangeable.
And you go to war with what you've got. What you need comes next followed by what you want……… Army doctrine that holds good today!
Do we have this anywhere i can read? "a whole page devoted to the non interchangeable parts and semi-interchangeable 'with adjustments' in a 1939 reprint of a 1920 Armourers handbook" ?
The short answer to the Q is No, you don't!. But don't be shy SSJ. If you want to read it, then when I get home I'll arrange to put it up for everyones general interest
Peter I tend to read everything I can find on Enfields at least once.