Something that always puzzled me is how the Americans were open to giving the British tanks, trucks, food, supplies, and other necessities of war but never gave or helped the British develop a self-loading rifle during the war? What were the reasons for this? Because it was fairly evident by WW2 that self-loading rifles were the future of arms innovations with the Germans, Soviets, and Americans developing their own. The British even bought and actively used the M1 Thompson submachine gun which is a self-loading weapon. So with all the factors pointing to the development of a British self-loading rilfe, what factors prevented this from occurring?
Hey there,
Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.
If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!