Gangster Guns

Why did the British Military idiotically ignore the coming rise of the sub-machine gun and waved them off as nothing more than mere 'gangster guns'?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Peerage and self-importance.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bit sad innit

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its always about monry for the British. Why would they want someone using many bullets? So wasteful.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >british military
    stopped reading

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      English, British, they're all BBC lovers.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What should they be called then?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The island formerly owned by Anglos.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        West European Trading Company owned by the crown of India.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because brits are the world champions of retarded procurement decisions, made even worse because they're a first world company in europe that spends a lot on its armed forces and could do it better immediately if they wouldn't be eternally doomed to be retards about it.
    Which is impressive considering all those African countries, Russia, China and every single dictatorship with silly ideas.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this is what happens when your country and military is run by no gunz

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Theres probably some political angle I'm not aware of, but militarily they just didn't seem to foresee any kind of major war in Europe. They didn't just sleep on SMGs, they had shitty light tanks as well. If they had taken armor more seriously in the mid-30s and had some decent up-gunned designs by 1939, they may have held France much longer.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just give everyone a rifle, if they can't shoot sub moa with irons, what good are they?
    British always fought outnumbered so laying down fire for defensive suppression wasn't an option, your 10 guys need to drop 300 charging natives or they getting gutted.
    Can dump as many 9mm mags as you like but can never trust hits will incapacitate and allow you switch to next target.
    Dumping on one guy is fine and dandy, but 1v1 does not maketh a empire

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They disagreed apparently since they shit themselves the moment WW2 kicked off and scrambled for a smg.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >See your strategic ally get pushed into the sea leaving most of their military equipment on the beach, including what SMGs they had already bought off you
    >They come to you in desperation to buy SMGs
    >You charge them equivalent to two grand per gun and insist they pay you in gold ingots
    >They pay, indignant tears running down their faces
    >They try to produce a cheap local alternative but hate it so much they continue to buy any SMGs you'll spare them until late into the war
    God it feels good to be an American. Its like bongs exist solely to be our playthings.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Are ya winning son

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Have you met the average Brit?

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Historically speaking, the British have always under-valued and under-equipped their ground forces, instead focusing on their Naval and later Air forces. They've been doing that since they were still using muskets, refusing to replace the aging Brown Bess with a clone of the superior Charleville like everyone else with money was doing at the time. Being on an island will do that to you.
    Anyways, combine this lack of caring about the footsloggers with the early 20th century military thinking/aneurism of "oh shit moron what the fuck are we doing?" that everyone was having at once and you get that.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      honestly don't think the British brass were dumb, they were just trying to kill as many Anglos as humanly possible

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >honestly don't think the British brass were dumb
        They kinda were. That's what happens when you base military leadership off of feudal titles rather than personal ability. Instead of picking someone who's actually qualified for the job first, such as actually knowing what strategy is, your first and main concern of hiring is "how does Lord Fosbury the Thrice-Inbred prefer his tea?" and then putting the drooling dimwit in charge of people's lives.
        >they were just trying to kill as many Anglos as humanly possible
        As they say, do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance. Or something of the sort.
        Anyways, it's not that the fat-necked retards were trying to kill people. I'm sure the notion that people were dying as the result of their poor decisions didn't occur to some of them, most of them were more concerned about clout, looking cool, and what actions sounded like exploits their favorite fictional characters would do. And while there's certainly a place for all of these things in the military and beyond, they come second to practicality and men's lives. Focus on those first, then see if the budget allocates for you to charge that panzer and poke the crew's eyes out with an umbrella through the viewslots (which actually did happen once) or exclusively use a sword and longbow on the field (which also happened once). The difference with these two examples is that these guys took account of the number 1 first, then allocated for whether they could acceptably larp within those confines.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Instead of picking someone who's actually qualified for the job first, such as actually knowing what strategy is, your first and main concern of hiring is "how does Lord Fosbury the Thrice-Inbred prefer his tea?" and then putting the drooling dimwit in charge of people's lives.
          Country gentlemen from a very young age were essentially educated for war. Wellington is a good example. There is a vomit like stench of socialist butthurt emanating from you. If the working man had some magical hidden virtue he would not be poor would he? Dogs and horses and cattle and sheep are true to their breeding but you think that some spawn of illiterate alcoholic slum dwelled dung collector such as most of your family tree just needs a little prodding in the right direction to rival the pedigree specimen? Neither I or I assume Wellington (or for that matter Patton) agree.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if this was true the nobility would still fucking matter.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            t.british guy who descended from nobility but works at a fuckin tesco

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Fucking hell you uppercrust bootlickers are just as deHispanicable as commies
            t. actually descended from Scottish Royalty

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance
          this is one of those things that sounds really smart but is actually extremely dangerous and is literally one of the ideas that is destroying society.

          if you look at something that has clearly been done incorrectly and then ask yourself 'what could explain this better, malice, or stupidity?' then the answer is going to be dictated by your own bias.
          it's a piece of semantics that literally trains you to ignore reality and pay attention to your own bias, and you don't even realize that's what you're doing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can always reassess the situation you know. Order of affairs should be first to assume ignorance, then to question it rather than letting the matter drop because "oh they didn't know". If they don't know, then your job should be to correct their ignorance. If they then refuse your corrections out of hand and/or persist in doing wrong, then it is malice.
            Think about that and how bad it would be for people if you start by assuming malice. Let's say that I've trained a new night guard on how to lock the doors of a building each evening. The next night, the doors are not locked. Do you think it would be logical to scream at him that he did this on purpose and accuse him of aiding robbers to let them inside the building, or is it more logical to show him how to do it again and let him know that it's an important part of the job? Now, if he kept doing it for a second or third time, then you can assume he is either being lazy and not trying at his job or that he has some other ulterior motives. Lacking any proof of the latter, then laziness is the malicious cause. You can then fire his ass and hire someone who will do their job.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I own both an original 'charville' by which you mean an ANIX1777 and an original Brown Bess. The Brown Bess is of substantially higher quality. This is not particularly surprising the industrial revolution centred on Birmingham managed to outproduce at a higher quality the French arsenals. The barrel of the brown Bess is substantially stronger and the walls thicker and more suitable for actual use with the bayonet.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I was more referring to many superior features that the Charleville had over the Bess. For example, the way the Charleville's stock is made is meant to prevent the stock from shattering or splitting in two over time, if the wood became weak on another musket like the Bess then eventually it would do that one day while firing. I could also be thinking of a different French musket pattern, but I'm pretty sure it was the Charleville.
        Sure, they can both do the same thing at the end of the day, but one has some better features. Many Euros copied it for a reason. While the Bess could be made with better materials later due to the Industrial Revolution, it still had some common flaws in its design like that. But this really didn't matter as much because I say again, the British historically have relied on their Navy to do the heavy lifting in wartime. That and they'd rather completely die than adopt a French design in any way, they never got over the last time they adopted something French in the form of the Anglo-Norman language.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Birmingham managed to outproduce at a higher quality the French arsenals.

        How? Millions of 1777/AnIX/AnXIII muskets were made in France alone. Austrians, Prussians, Russians, Italians and Americans made several times more clones and copies of them. You could call it an AK of its time, only it was more like AR in comparison to Brown Bess designed in early 1700s.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because the interwar british military was run by inbred morons who thought that a second world war would never happen

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Part of it is the usual british retardation but I also think it because they had a pretty good bolt action rifle. Enfields are really fast and smooth compared to most other bolt actions. Same could be said for why they stuck with revolvers so long

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bad copy of the MAB 38.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *