Joined: August 4th, 2008, 5:03 am

March 14th, 2018, 4:04 am #161

sergeante wrote:
Andy01 wrote:
1. You're the one claiming that P13 approval was imminent so you'll have to prove it.  

2. You'll also have to prove that Cabinet approval (which is the final step prior to Parliament voting on funding) wasn't needed.

3. The Cdns did approve the Ross rifle... in .303 (rather than the preferred Ross .280) to maintain Empire commonality of ammo as did the .303 V-B LMG, which was also produced in India. UK introduction of a .28 calibre rifle would have entailed lots of discussion between the UK and Dominions to ensure Empire commonality of ammo and having a separate rifle only ammunition would have greatly complicated LMG and MG production. 

4. The adoption of the Lewis gun was a wartime emergency measure and steps to replace it began ASAP.

5. The first post WW1 competitive LMG trials to replace the Lewis were in 1922 while the first competitive trials to include the Bren were in 1930 with approval in 1935 and production not commencing until 1937.  Canada participated in the Imperial Conference of June 1937 where Empire allocation of weapons production was discussed, with approval in principle of Dominion production of Bren Guns.
1. Straw man. Nobody can prove anything about the P13 adoption process, because the war intervened. But the rifle was already in troop trials in 1913. It was on the same trajectory that the Lee-Enfield was when it replaced the Lee-Metford -- a pre-determined technological choice that just had to be refined.

2. Your claim, your responsibility to document.

3. Horsefeathers. The British Army was already troop testing the rifle. The decision to change calibers was being embraced. As for machine guns, there weren't that many before WW1. New purchases could have been specified in thew caliber.

4. BSA, before the war, sure thought they were going to get orders. I wonder why?

5. Canada agreed to produce Bren guns. They didn't tell the Imoerial General Staff what to adopt. Also, it took five years to adopt the Bren once it was on offer. Preceding trials are irrelevant.
1) yeah...but you claimed otherwise. Are you backing away from that now?

2) sorry but that one's on you as well.  

3) Tell us again why the US Army adopted a .276 rifle between the wars... (this should be fun).

4) BSA and other UK manufacturers produced lots of private venture weapons, most of which were NOT adopted by the UK.

5) Canada didn't have an LMG in production and it's responce might have been different if it did.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 2:54 pm

March 14th, 2018, 4:37 am #162

Like when they consulted with Canada on the switch from .450 to .303 in spite of the Dominion Arsenal being established to produce .450 ammo in 1882?  Somehow, I missed hearing about that or for that matter, when Canada's opinion was sought by the War Ministry about what caliber to make the Ross.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 2:54 pm

March 14th, 2018, 4:49 am #163

Not only did Canada not have an LMG in production until WWII, we didn't make any military small arms after the Ross ended production until we started making Brens when the next war started.  If not for British orders with private industry pre-war, we wouldn't even have had that.

The likelihood is that once a replacement for the Ross was necessary, probably in the twenties, we'd adopt whatever British forces were using in whatever caliber.  If that meant using .303 in Canada when the British Army was using .276, just as we used .577 and .450 when the British Army was using .303, then so be it.  As it happened, we ended up with a very large number of British-made SMLE to see us through the inter war and early war period.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 4th, 2008, 5:03 am

March 14th, 2018, 5:05 am #164

Dave AAA wrote: Like when they consulted with Canada on the switch from .450 to .303 in spite of the Dominion Arsenal being established to produce .450 ammo in 1882?  Somehow, I missed hearing about that or for that matter, when Canada's opinion was sought by the War Ministry about what caliber to make the Ross.
I guess the arsenal never produced any .303 ammo...nor did it need to produce any ammo for guns already in service.

I don't follow your 2nd sentence as the UK war ministry was not the contractor for the Ross. Canada produced the Ross in .303 to ensure commonality of ammunition.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 4th, 2008, 5:03 am

March 14th, 2018, 5:14 am #165

Dave AAA wrote: Not only did Canada not have an LMG in production until WWII, we didn't make any military small arms after the Ross ended production until we started making Brens when the next war started.  If not for British orders with private industry pre-war, we wouldn't even have had that.

The likelihood is that once a replacement for the Ross was necessary, probably in the twenties, we'd adopt whatever British forces were using in whatever caliber.  If that meant using .303 in Canada when the British Army was using .276, just as we used .577 and .450 when the British Army was using .303, then so be it.  As it happened, we ended up with a very large number of British-made SMLE to see us through the inter war and early war period.
Bren gun production in Canada was a jointly funded venture between the UK and Canada as were most pre-WW2 military orders.

Again, the Ross was made in .303 to ensure commonality of ammunition.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 2:54 pm

March 14th, 2018, 5:18 am #166

The British Army had switched to .303 a decade before Canada decided to cancel nearly all training for a year in order to buy .303 long Lee-Enfields to replace Sniders and Martinis.  As for the Ross, the point was there was no consultation.  Imperial authorities didn't bother doing that then and barely did even after WWI.  No one asked for Canadian input on adopting the Bren, for instance, or on the 7.92 mm Besa.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 4th, 2008, 5:03 am

March 14th, 2018, 6:34 am #167

Dave AAA wrote: The British Army had switched to .303 a decade before Canada decided to cancel nearly all training for a year in order to buy .303 long Lee-Enfields to replace Sniders and Martinis.  As for the Ross, the point was there was no consultation.  Imperial authorities didn't bother doing that then and barely did even after WWI.  No one asked for Canadian input on adopting the Bren, for instance, or on the 7.92 mm Besa.
I'm still not sure of what you're saying:

There were other signs of trouble with the Ross. In an 1892(?) report by the U.S. Chief of Ordnance, the same type of jamming and stiff operation problems were encountered. Although sharing the same caliber ammunition, the Ross and Lee-Enfield did not have interchangeable parts. British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain warned that adopting the Ross would destroy “the absolute uniformity of pattern necessary when Imperial and Colonial troops fight side by side.” A May 1902 test at Hythe, England, concluded “the inferiority of the Ross was very marked” in comparison to the Lee-Enfield. The results were passed along to Canada by the Colonial Office, which opposed adopting the Ross.
http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/ ... le-of-wwi/
(?) that date must be incorrect but there was consultation between Canada and the UK regarding the Ross Rifle. Actually this is referring to an 1892 report on the Mannlicher upon which the Ross design seems to have been based.
Last edited by Andy01 on March 14th, 2018, 7:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 2:54 pm

March 14th, 2018, 6:47 am #168

I'm saying the British government did not ask the Dominions' opinions on British weapon procurement.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 27th, 2011, 9:14 pm

March 14th, 2018, 2:31 pm #169

Andy01 wrote:

1) yeah...but you claimed otherwise. Are you backing away from that now?

2) sorry but that one's on you as well.  

3) Tell us again why the US Army adopted a .276 rifle between the wars... (this should be fun).

4) BSA and other UK manufacturers produced lots of private venture weapons, most of which were NOT adopted by the UK.

5) Canada didn't have an LMG in production and it's responce might have been different if it did.
1. I din't claim anything. I stated an opinion. The opinion is that the P13 was within sight of adoption. The supporting evidence was the fact that it was already in troop trials, with no competitors. That's a last step before adoption, not an initial or even intermediate step.

2. The rule has always been your claim, your burden of proof.

3. Tell us why any army changed any caliber at any time. Tell us why the NATO armies allowed the US to dominate two caliber decisions between 1950 and 1980.

4. Not the way to bet with the Lewis. But believe what you want.

5. As Dave has pointed out, Canada's response wasn't going to change what the UK army did.
Up and forward on the starboard side, down and aft on the port. 

The question of authority stalks the de-religionist project. (Paul Vander Klay)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 4th, 2008, 5:03 am

March 14th, 2018, 5:12 pm #170

sergeante wrote:
Andy01 wrote:

1) yeah...but you claimed otherwise. Are you backing away from that now?

2) sorry but that one's on you as well.  

3) Tell us again why the US Army adopted a .276 rifle between the wars... (this should be fun).

4) BSA and other UK manufacturers produced lots of private venture weapons, most of which were NOT adopted by the UK.

5) Canada didn't have an LMG in production and it's responce might have been different if it did.
1. I din't claim anything. I stated an opinion. The opinion is that the P13 was within sight of adoption. The supporting evidence was the fact that it was already in troop trials, with no competitors. That's a last step before adoption, not an initial or even intermediate step.

2. The rule has always been your claim, your burden of proof.

3. Tell us why any army changed any caliber at any time. Tell us why the NATO armies allowed the US to dominate two caliber decisions between 1950 and 1980.

4. Not the way to bet with the Lewis. But believe what you want.

5. As Dave has pointed out, Canada's response wasn't going to change what the UK army did.
2) Parliament approves spending and this is always the final hurdle in adopting a new weapon. Typically when Cabinet includes the spending in a bill, it will be approved since the government in power usually can command a majority in the HofC.

5) At the very least Canada would have submitted it's hypothetical LMG for consideration during trials to select a replacement for the Lewis. For the Dominions to express an opinion they first have to have one. As we can see Canada did have an opinion when they had a weapon in production and it was considered (and thankfully rejected) by the UK. However, if the Ross was found to have superior qualities to the LE it seems likely that it would have been given further scrutiny, at least.
Quote
Like
Share