Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

[Ramp-Rat]

Probably not. OTL Churchill had a massive blind spot when it came to the USA. He trusted that they would keep their word re: sharing nuclear technology based in large part on the British Tube Alloys project, spoiler: they didn't. Then there were the incredibly restrictive trade clauses the US inserted into Lend-Lease. While ITTL, the Brits won't be quite so desperate as to sign the exact same treaty, Churchill is the same man, the one who truly thought that the 'Special Relationship' was an agreement between equals and not the surrender of world leadership that it really was.

Meanwhile IOTL, both Australia and New Zealand were very wary of US expansion into what was very literally their backyard. There were several not-quite-so-diplomatic notes asking the US what their post-war intentions towards the South Pacific Islands that the US had occupied and garrisoned. Those notes were sent because there were quite a few signs that they were planning on staying in some of them. Both Australia and New Zealand were also concerned that they, and the other minor nations, would be shut out of discussions concerning both the conduct of the war and of its aftermath. These concerns were proven right when the US froze out the ANZACS from the direction of the Pacific War following those notes and again when the "Big 5" granted themselves veto rights over the newly formed United Nations. London looked the other way and sided with Washington.

For its part, despite its public position as an "anti-colonialist power", the USA was anything but. Their experiences with their own territories and the Philipines led them to misunderstand the differences between colonies and Dominions within the British Empire, hence they often expressed exasperation to London re: Australia & New Zealand, demanding that Britain reign in its colonies, only to express some confusion when reminded that Dominions were not colonies but self-ruling nations with the same monarch and thus allies, if minor ones. Which was why Britain could not stop Australia recalling its armies from North Africa and why Freyberg had that very annoying letter from the New Zealand government authorising him to withdraw his division from combat whenever he deemed it necessary in order to prevent the unnecessary loss of New Zealand life.

Winston for all his good points, was very much a fool when it came to relations with the United States, and he allowed FDR to play him completely. Mostly because he didn’t realise that unlike in Britain where a man’s word and handshake were a solid contact, in America unless it was down on paper, having been thoroughly examined by your lawyers and signed in front of multiple witnesses, it didn’t exist. And in addition should you deviate in anyway, you could be sued at your cost into the poor house. While they the Americans could alter their side of the deal in anyway they choose, and bugger your luck of getting a favourable result is an American court, or of getting an American court to respect a judgment made in an inferior British court, that denied them their rights under the constitution. As for the attitude of the American establishment towards the various Dominion Nations, it first came to prominence in the twenties, when the Americans refused to allow them to represent themselves at the Washington Naval Treatise, and insisted that they were represented by Britain, and that their ships were included in the total British tonnage allowance. This forced Australia, New Zealand and Canada to scrap capital ships that they had paid for, or were still paying for, so that the British could keep their ships in service. Note had Australia and New Zealand been able to keep their battlecruisers in service, which would have significantly changed their situation in the Far East in regards to the Japanese.

RR.

 

[kelgar04]

Shame there is no one who can speak sense to Churchill when it comes to the USA, sort of surprised Beaverbrook didn't given he can speak American pretty well.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I would think that Churchill was far more concerned with the pressing need to defeat the Nazis and having the US on side pretty much ensured that was going to happen

Everything else regardless of down stream implications is a distant secondary concern regardless of how much angst it might cause today

And I think he was correct to have done so

 

[Tursiops Amicus]

I would think that Churchill was far more concerned with the pressing need to defeat the Nazis and having the US on side pretty much ensured that was going to happen

Everything else regardless of down stream implications is a distant secondary concern regardless of how much angst it might cause today

And I think he was correct to have done so

Maybe in TTL he hasn't so pressing need and he can do a better bargain.

 

[yulzari1]

And later there was Churchill’s Rifle No9 debacle.

 

[kelgar04]

And later there was Churchill’s Rifle No9 debacle.

What was that?

 

[ArtosStark]

And later there was Churchill’s Rifle No9 debacle.

What was that?

That was the EM-2 bullpup rifle in .280 developed after the war:

EM-2 rifle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was intended to replace British .303 bolt actions but there was a requirement for ammunition to be shared with the US so that they could supply Britain in the event of war. The US would not go for the more intermediate .280. Labour initially adopted it anyway as the Rifle No. 9 in .280. But this was the last act of an outgoing ministry. Churchill determined that a standard calibre was more important than a British made gun or ammo (or optimized ammo) and cancelled the .280 to go to 7.62 NATO.

Less well known is that the EM-2 could actually have still been adopted. It was converted to 7.62 and worked fine. Though it would not have been able to fulfill its initial purpose of providing both suppressive and aimed fire (too much kick). However, Churchill really liked the FAL (can’t totally blame him for that) and didn’t have confidence that British industry could produce enough EM-2’s to equip British forces. When the EM-2 supporters showed the math that they could Churchill upped the ante by requiring them to also be able to equip the reserves in the same timeframe. Which they could not. So the FAL was purchased.

To be fair to Churchill, he wasn’t necessarily wrong. A common calibre probably would have been more important than a perfect weapon in the event of war. And British industry at the time would have struggled to completely equip all mobilized forces with the No.9 in the event of total war. But in the world of OTL with the US eventually moving to a smaller calibre anyway and no total war, it is a bit of a shame that a good local option which would have been tactically superior was passed over.

 

[MarcH]

That was the EM-2 bullpup rifle in .280 developed after the war:
View attachment 857356

EM-2 rifle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was intended to replace British .303 bolt actions but there was a requirement for ammunition to be shared with the US so that they could supply Britain in the event of war. The US would not go for the more intermediate .280. Labour initially adopted it anyway as the Rifle No. 9 in .280. But this was the last act of an outgoing ministry. Churchill determined that a standard calibre was more important than a British made gun or ammo (or optimized ammo) and cancelled the .280 to go to 7.62 NATO.

Less well known is that the EM-2 could actually have still been adopted. It was converted to 7.62 and worked fine. Though it would not have been able to fulfill its initial purpose of providing both suppressive and aimed fire (too much kick). However, Churchill really liked the FAL (can’t totally blame him for that) and didn’t have confidence that British industry could produce enough EM-2’s to equip British forces. When the EM-2 supporters showed the math that they could Churchill upped the ante by requiring them to also be able to equip the reserves in the same timeframe. Which they could not. So the FAL was purchased.

To be fair to Churchill, he wasn’t necessarily wrong. A common calibre probably would have been more important than a perfect weapon in the event of war. And British industry at the time would have struggled to completely equip all mobilized forces with the No.9 in the event of total war. But in the world of OTL with the US eventually moving to a smaller calibre anyway and no total war, it is a bit of a shame that a good local option which would have been tactically superior was passed over.

There was also the issue that EM-2 wasn't really finished. The rifle was still being worked on and was being tried out in a number of different calibres, including 7.62 NATO. The rifle also had the issue of being more expensive and complicated to manufacture than the FAL, at least in the guise it was in at the point of being adopted.

The reality is that while EM-2 was a very promising design and based around a far more modern and concept than the American wishes it was not ready in time. It was also hamstrung by the fact the round it was designed for was constantly being changed to meet criteria it was never going to meet. Had Britain stuck to their guns and gone down the calibre route they initially deemed as optimal rather than the inflated rounds they went with then a lot more time could have been spent on developing and properly trialling the gun. It is important to remember only around 60 or 70 EM-2's were built from memory. That includes all the different versions with all the small developmental changes. Propper troop trials would have resulted in more changes in all likelihood along with changes to simplify the design for mass production. Instead the constant back and forth likely delayed a lot of the fine tuning and trialling that needed to happen.

All that combined with the FAL being more ready AND cheaper made the decision to adopt the FAL the correct one. The real missed opportunity with the EM-2 was actually the calibre selection. Had Britain stuck with the .25 to .27 inch range they had initially decided on and built the rifle around that sort of performance then they would have had a fantastic "compliment" to the 7.62 NATO Battle rifle instead of the sterling SMG.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

There was also the issue that EM-2 wasn't really finished. The rifle was still being worked on and was being tried out in a number of different calibres, including 7.62 NATO. The rifle also had the issue of being more expensive and complicated to manufacture than the FAL, at least in the guise it was in at the point of being adopted.

The reality is that while EM-2 was a very promising design and based around a far more modern and concept than the American wishes it was not ready in time. It was also hamstrung by the fact the round it was designed for was constantly being changed to meet criteria it was never going to meet. Had Britain stuck to their guns and gone down the calibre route they initially deemed as optimal rather than the inflated rounds they went with then a lot more time could have been spent on developing and properly trialling the gun. It is important to remember only around 60 or 70 EM-2's were built from memory. That includes all the different versions with all the small developmental changes. Propper troop trials would have resulted in more changes in all likelihood along with changes to simplify the design for mass production. Instead the constant back and forth likely delayed a lot of the fine tuning and trialling that needed to happen.

All that combined with the FAL being more ready AND cheaper made the decision to adopt the FAL the correct one. The real missed opportunity with the EM-2 was actually the calibre selection. Had Britain stuck with the .25 to .27 inch range they had initially decided on and built the rifle around that sort of performance then they would have had a fantastic "compliment" to the 7.62 NATO Battle rifle instead of the sterling SMG.

While I like the EM2/No9 I think had the .270 true intermediate calibre been selected then the FAL still would have been a better choice in terms of unit cost and mass production.

So it might still have selected over the No9

 

[Ramontxo]

It is a joy to go back to the caliber debates...

 

[Starinski]

It is a joy to go back to the caliber debates...

Wait for the food debate AND the production of tanks in Australia to crop up !

 

[ArtosStark]

The rifle also had the issue of being more expensive and complicated to manufacture than the FAL

That was the impression though I have never seen a comparison of expected costs to produce.

Propper troop trials would have resulted in more changes in all likelihood along with changes to simplify the design for mass production.

It did actually get some troop trials in Malaya. Not likely in combat, but it was used and carried on patrol.

 

[MarcH]

While I like the EM2/No9 I think had the .270 true intermediate calibre been selected then the FAL still would have been a better choice in terms of unit cost and mass production.

So it might still have selected over the No9

Possibly, it depends on what route the FAL takes. If the FAL competes with Britain and its own calibre then yes possibly a better option. The more likely scenario though in my opinion is the FAL becomes what it became historically as the lure of being the standard round is too great. That being said I actually think that Britain still might adopt the FAL in limited numbers as a backup/heavy rifle along with the MAG.

That was the impression though I have never seen a comparison of expected costs to produce.

I don't think they ever really got to that point with the EM-2 as it was still being tweaked right up to being cancelled.

It did actually get some troop trials in Malaya. Not likely in combat, but it was used and carried on patrol.

Yes but only 2 rifles IIRC. That is hardly handing out a Battalion's worth or at least a company's worth of rifles for the squaddies to play with. Two rifles are rare enough that they will be checked up on and any untoward treatment will be noticed. That likely had an effect on how they were handled and who they were given too. Would you give either rifle to Private fumbles?

 

[Sqdn19]

In any event, IIRC British & CW FN-FALs were inch pattern and so didn’t have that many interchangeable parts with the metric (continental) versions anyway.

Which to my mind somewhat spoiled the goal of “NATO standardisation”.

 

[Bougnas]

Another retrospective post on earlier discussions and events in the two Carden threads, after I managed to get and read some P.M. Knight books:

There was the old discussion on the implementation of capped shot for the 2 pounder where it was argued that its implementation was difficult due to the fact only one ammunition factory was available for a while. It turns out that there may have been another even more crucial factor. Maj-Gen E.M.C Clarke addressed the question of face hardened armor in two reports of April and May 1941, where the merits of capped shot against this armor type had been already demonstrated in firing trials.
However, the British had not yet captured German tanks so they did not know how common this type of armor was, and Clarke assumed that it would only be used for heavily armored tanks in low numbers due to production constraints. Since the speculated heavy armor was assumed to be thicker than what even capped 2pdr shot would handle, capped ammo was not pushed but was recommended for the 6 pounder where this would make a difference.

However, in this timeline, the British have already captured a few tanks in 1940 and have found out they have face-hardened armor, even for what would amount to lightly armored mass produced tanks. So this probably gave them pause and strengthened the rationale for 2pdr capped ammo a year ahead of the Desert Army facing the German face-hardened tanks themselves.


The other remark is on the adoption of armor welding by Vickers early in the timeline. This makes a lot of sense as it turns out that one major proponent of this method in the War Office OTL (as early as 1940-41) was Leslie Little himself. Vickers would indeed be the first tank manufacturer to commit to full welding of thick armor plates, with the A25 Harry Hopkins in 1942 (although the technique was already used for assembling the inner manganese steel skin of the turrets of the Covenanter and Crusader OTL).

 

[ArtosStark]

Yes but only 2 rifles IIRC. That is hardly handing out a Battalion's worth or at least a company's worth of rifles for the squaddies to play with. Two rifles are rare enough that they will be checked up on and any untoward treatment will be noticed. That likely had an effect on how they were handled and who they were given too. Would you give either rifle to Private fumbles?

Two rifles but they had reports from 4 battalions on their use. They got passed around and worked pretty hard. Mostly at the range in Malaya but also on patrol to some extent:

Comments by four battalions in Malaya on .280 (EM2) self loading rifle used in machine... | The National Archives

The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee the survival of today's information for tomorrow and bring history to life for everyone.

discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk

 

[Ramp-Rat]

Might we see some slightly different results in the Anglo American relationship ITTL, in comparison to those IOTL., possibly. Winston while still regarding the entry of America into the war on the British side, will not have under the intense pressure during his first weeks, and post Dunkirk that he was IOTL. The combination of the slightly better performance of the British Army, especially the armoured forces, in France, plus the much better situation in regards to armoured vehicle production. When added to the success of the RN during the failed Norwegian campaign, and the much reduced possibility of a German invasion, means that he is in a much stronger position at home. Note he isn’t going to tell the public that an invasion is basically not a proposition, he wants as does his administration to keep their noses to the grindstone, and focused on increasing production. Once the Battle of Britain is effectively over with the switch by the Luftwaffe from daylight attacks to general bombing by night, he and the majority of his military and civil administration, is sure that an invasion this year or even next year is not a possibility. And he and the administration can focus on the principal problem of defeating the U-Boats in the Atlantic, while focusing on the defeat of the Italians in North and East Africa. So the British will not be approaching the Americans cap in hand, desperate for any crumbs they can get. There will be more time to examine the various proposals made by the Americans in detail, and for government advisers to make their recommendations to Winston as to just how much of the family silver the Americans want to grab. Yes he will give away far more than he needs to, but after the German invasion of the Soviet Union, British success in North and East Africa, followed by British success in repulsing the Japanese in the Far East. Both he himself and the British administration will be able to take a much tougher line with the Americans. And especially post war refusing to sign up to an agreement that effectively gutted the pound, and allowed American companies to make significant inroads in the Imperial market place, while excluding British companies from the American market.

RR.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Possibly, it depends on what route the FAL takes. If the FAL competes with Britain and its own calibre then yes possibly a better option. The more likely scenario though in my opinion is the FAL becomes what it became historically as the lure of being the standard round is too great. That being said I actually think that Britain still might adopt the FAL in limited numbers as a backup/heavy rifle along with the MAG.

The FAL project ran hand in hand with the EM2 project with prototypes in 7.92 Kurtz and the experimental .280 rounds.

Its original design was able to be ‘stretched’ to incorporate the 7.62 NATO round.

If the decision was made to go with the true .270 intermediate round then I think the demands of equipping the entire British army and reserves etc will still impose a need to use a design better suited for mass production.

The change in calibre did not change this.

Anyway it’s simply my opinion and it’s not a hill I’m dying over.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Maybe in TTL he hasn't so pressing need and he can do a better bargain.

Things are only better in hindsight compared to OTL

In both ITL and TTL things are still on the wrong side of bloody awful.

 

[I lurk therefore I am]

It did actually get some troop trials in Malaya. Not likely in combat, but it was used and carried on patrol.

My Dad trialled the EM2 in Malaya. He has always been very positive about it.

The EM2s cancellation is one of his favourite pet rants at perfidity of foreigners and the Labour Party (along with the TSR2 cancellation, decimalisation of the pound and the UK being "tricked" (his words) into joining the EU and not the EEU, as was promised the referendum.)