"UK Forces and Automatic Firepower" Topic

8 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please avoid recent politics on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

Featured Hobby News Article

3Dprintable Generic WWII Landing Craft Hex Tile Available

T-26 Tank

Featured Ruleset

Hour of Glory

Featured Showcase Article

Victory as a Campaign System

Can a WWII blockgame find happiness as a miniatures campaign system?

Featured Profile Article

First Look: Battlefront's 1:100 Panzergrenadier HQ

Editor in Chief Bill opens the box on the Armoured Panzergrenadier Company HQ (Late-War) for Flames of War.

Current Poll

Favorite SCW Movie (Round 2)

dalem17	26 Nov 2025 8:31 a.m. PST
Put quite simply, I do not understand the comparative lack of tripod-mounted, belt-fed machineguns in the UK WW2 TO&E. First some quick generic numbers: Looking at paper TO&E of U.S. Infantry Division Rifle companies in division: 27 M1917 heavy MG platoons: 18 M1919 "light" MG platoons: 14* Total of 32 for 27 companies, for a ratio of 1.2 German Infantry Division (I know, AS IF there was a standard…) Rifle companies in division: 27 MG34/42 tripod "heavy" MG platoons: 14** Total of 14 for 27 companies, for a ratio of .5 UK Infantry Division Rifle companies in division: 36 Vickers tripod "heavy" MG platoons: 12 Total of 12 for 36 companies, for a ration of .33 * most commonly assigned as 27 2-gun sections in rifle company's weapons platoon, so this is the 4-gun platoon equivalent. ** actually 9 platoons but each with 6 guns each instead of the 4 of the others. ================================ Obviously my numbers above are relatively "hogwashy" – us Yanks put MGs, usually .50cals, on everything that could possibly move, and plenty of things that didn't. The Germans had the first real GPMG and could tripod it or not as needed and so really what's the difference between the squad or company weapons. Plus the Germans had about a million different TO&Es so the idea of a standard is kind of a joke. But not only did the Brits seemingly not have any Vickers organic to brigades or companies, their companies didn't even have a true heavy weapons platoon. Sure, a few 2" mortars and Brens attached to the HQ, but everyone else had the equivalent, in addition to the HW platoon for the company. AND the Brits unshipped all the .50cals from the Lend-Lease stuff that came with them and warehoused them. No extra MG FP from halftracks or the like. Yes, they had oodles of Universal/Bren carriers, but those are still Bren guns, not Vickers (right?) So I think the ratios are a useful place to ask my question from: Why that gap – and IMO it's a BIG gap – between the LMGs of the sections and the relatively few Vickers? Secondary question: were the MG platoons of the MG Battalion assigned relatively permanently to brigades or battalions, or were they truly kept as a divisional asset? Thanks!! -dale
Greg G1	26 Nov 2025 10:19 a.m. PST
The 1941 -42 Infantry Division had 48 Vickers MMG's in the MG Battalion. The 1943 – 45 Infantry Division had 36 Vickers MMG's in the MG Battalion. This is from link
Stoppage	26 Nov 2025 10:20 a.m. PST
Doctrinal differences. Brits prized marksmanship and had miserly ammunition scales – this suited their usual job of policing an empire. They were also the first fully-mechanised army, and enjoyed good radio provision. The radios could call in masses of artillery at formation level, and mortars at local level. The Germans appear to have built their infantry squads around their MGs – probably enjoying crew-served weapons dynamics. They needed them too – lower quantities of artillery. --- There is a battle essay by Col Lionel Wigram – he describes the fighting in Sicily and talks about grouping the platoons brens together to shoot-in the attack, which took place using bayonets and grenades. He also notes that it was rare to hear brens and mgs firing at the same time. This essary is an example belt-fed mgs being countered by magazine-fed light mgs.
Starfury Rider	26 Nov 2025 10:34 a.m. PST
The pre-war British Infantry Division, as outlined in 1936 or so, anticipated the new Infantry Brigade would have three inf (Rifle) Bns, each with 36 LMGs across its 16 Rifle Pls, and one Inf (MG) Bn with 36 MMGs and 16 towed 2-pr atk guns. Early experience with the Bren showed it provided much better firepower than might have been expected; it was initially thought the MMGs would provide assault fire and the Brens would be utilised in defensive situations. Also the major expansion in Inf formations seen at the end of the 1930s put the requirement of three MG Bns per Div into sharp relief. The end result for the BEF in 1940 was that the MG Bns became Corps/GHQ units, that would be allotted to Divs as required (also the establishment of Atk Regts by the RA meant the 2-prs went to those units, allowing D Coy in each MG Bn to become an MMG unit). Experience in 1940/41 did not indicate, at least not that I've seen mentioned anywhere, that the centralisation of MMGs in a dedicated Bn in any way prohibited the Inf Bns. MMG Pls or Coys could be allocated to Bdes and Bns for set piece assaults and Inf bns also had their own LMG reserve in the shape of the Carrier Pl. There was much discussion on the introduction of Support Bns into the Divisional structure, planned from late 1942 but not instituted until into 1943. This did raise the question of whether each Inf bn should be given a Pl of MMGs, though there was no corresponding increase in manpower if this was done. That meant taking some personnel away from their original duties to man any MMGs issued to Bns, and also increased the transport requirements for guns, eqpt and ammunition. In Italy, Inf Bns were given four MMGs each (which for some units was a holdover of coming from the UK in Divs that did not yet have Sp Bns). They did have to re-role pers to man them, and were already suffering from shortfalls in reinforcements. The MG Bn did survive into the end of the 1940s, before the continual downsizing of the Army meant they could no longer be supported, so around 1949 the MMGs were permanently issued to Inf Bns, with six being added to the Carrier Pl, which shortly thereafter became the MG Pl. It is different from the US approach, which (no honestly) does not make it flat out wrong. The Red Army kept an MG Bn in Rifle divs to supplement Rifle Regt HMGs until into 1942, before they had to cut back, and the German Army went on to introduce standalone MG Bns in the late war period. Gary
Martin Rapier	26 Nov 2025 11:31 a.m. PST
To add to Garys comments, the British rifle battalions had 36 LMGs in the rifle companies and an extra 12 LMGs in the carrier platoon, for a total of 48 LMGs in the battalion (52 if you include the AAMG platoon). The carrier platoon also had another three 2" mortars so the battalion had six 2" mortars and six 3" ones. What might be 'weapons platoons' in other countries armies were rolled into the support company and carrier platoon. The British battalion also had four rifle companies and not three, so they all end up broadly comparable.
troopwo	26 Nov 2025 11:45 a.m. PST
The support battalion of Vickers mgs and 4.2" mortars would be parceled outas required.
enfant perdus	26 Nov 2025 1:25 p.m. PST
…and enjoyed good radio provision. The radios could call in masses of artillery at formation level, and mortars at local level. The radios were also useful for adjusting indirect MG fire, which the British/Commonwealth used extensively. The Vickers was a champion at this and could dominate a fair bit of geography with decent FOOs.
JMcCarroll	26 Nov 2025 2:48 p.m. PST
Both the Brits and Germans had excellent LMGs. So the need for Heavy MGs would be less. The Brit habit of pulling off the .50 cal, reduced the need for 2 different caliber machine gun ammo.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.