AHC: 19th century assault rifles?
- Thread starter ArKhan
- Start date
In 1870 the French machine gun like weapons would have been used as light artillary not as a machine gun. They were large awkward weapons that were sitting ducks for true field guns. While the French rifle was technically better than the Prussian Needle gun in reality they were about even. Over confidence in their supposedly superior weapons and poor decisions by Napoleon III are what led to France's defeat. Even with Winchesters France would have lost because the man giving the orders wouldn't have known how to deploy them properly.
PBI? Poor Buggerd Infantry?
That would be a good timeline...I wish there was a "wistuflly wishing to be a better writer" emoticon..
I can think of a couple cases from 1862 - 1876 where magazine/lever operated rifled carbines were sucessfully used in mobile battles. A look at those might be worth while.
PBI? Poor Buggerd Infantry?
That would be a good timeline...I wish there was a "wistuflly wishing to be a better writer" emoticon..
That's Poor Bloody Infantry. I don't even want to thing about Poor Buggerd Infantry but that probably describes an Ancient Greek Army.
Its only really necessary now because of other developments that spurred the creation of man portable automatic weapons, without those changes in strategic thinking, logistics, and warfare itself its just not worth it to make the shift.
I figured it was a British swear word. I just went with the worst i knew...
I wouldn't imagine that they would be adopted wholesale by armies. They would be particularly valuable in the case of small groups who may need to fight overwhelming numbers.
I could see them being used by the Indian Political Service in the Northwest Frontier. Also, wealthy boers or settlers in the American west might see the value of a huge amount of fire power in a relatively little package.
I could see them being used by the Indian Political Service in the Northwest Frontier. Also, wealthy boers or settlers in the American west might see the value of a huge amount of fire power in a relatively little package.
While there are serious logistical issues with ACW-era assault rifles, my question is this: Why not develop an early semi-auto rifle by making essentially a rifle-sized revolver? Just give a Colt revolver a rifle stock, a longer barrel, and rifle ammunition. You could have semi-automatic weaponry a decade before the Civil War. Why didn't anybody do this?
Revolving rifles already existed. Heck, a flintlock revolving-rifle was built during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. As Elfwine said, they had problems. The most common one being a tendency for all the chambers to fire off at once, removing the hand of the shooter.
There were plenty of other attempts at making repeaters before the Civil War - harmonica guns, "superimposed" rifles, and oddball designs like the Bennett.
The manufacture of assault rifles needs several technological advances over mid-nineteenth century weapons:
1) Readily available machined-steel parts (barrels, bolts, springs, etc.). Wrought iron won't do; it is too susceptible to metal fatigue. The relevant tech was not widely available until the 1890's OTL.
2) Smokeless powders. Black powder fouling would necessitate cleaning the barrel every 20-30 shots to prevent jamming and worse problems, which would make the rate of fire no better than a magazine-fed breechloader, and the latter weapon is more accurate. Such powders were not widely available until the 1890's OTL.
3) Brass cartridges. While it is possible to use paper or cloth cartridges, they are susceptible to moisture and more vulnerable to damage. Brass cartridge weapons were just coming into use in the 1860's and were not widespread until the 1880's.
That just makes the weapons technically possible; to get them built there has to be a perceived need for them as well. IOTL that did not happen until WW II, and true assault rifles did not appear until 1944 (StG44).
Why not earlier? Let's review the history. Prior to the 1850's armies used single shot muzzle-loading smoothbore weapons. They did so because breechloading weapons were inefficient and unreliable; the close tolerances necessary for proper breechloading weapons were simply not possible with the methods and materials of the time. The weapons were smoothbore because they could be loaded faster and were less susceptible to fouling than rifles. With these weapons the effective range was no more than 150 yards and volume of fire counted for more than accuracy, which meant large masses of troops firing at close range into other masses of troops.
The Minie rifle and its successors changed that. Fully as fast to load as a smoothbore, accurate to 300 yards or more, and less susceptible to fouling (because the tighter fitting bullet tended to scrape residue out of the barrel when it was fired) they were immediate successes. Troops using linear tactics were slaughtered facing these weapons (casualty rates in ACW battles regularly exceeded 33% of the troops involved). By the end of the Franco-Prussian War most people had gotten the message; frontal attacks were eschewed and troops took full advantage of available cover.
The advent of breechloading rifles merely reinforced this lesson; they were accurate to even longer ranges (as much as 1000 yards), could be loaded from a prone position, and had much higher rates of fire than muzzleloaders. Magazine rifles offered increased rates of fire, but the basic principles remained the same as for Minie rifles.
Until the later stages of WW I the tactical thinking remained the same as at the end of the Franco-Prussian War; massed aimed rifle fire was king. Defense was superior to attack; strategy consisted of maneuvering to position one's force where the enemy would have to attack it in circumstances favorable to the defender.
In those circumstances what advantages would an assault rifle offer to the user? Since engagements were expected to be at long range, the shorter effective range would be a handicap. Ammunition supply would be a problem, especially in the opening stages of the war when manufacturing had not yet increased to meet the needs of existing weapons, let alone these. The different type of ammunition used would be a further handicap (most machine guns of the period used the same ammunition as the rifles). Given the tactics of the time such weapons would actually be detrimental to the users.
IOTL assault rifles were developed to fill a perceived need. In the case of the Germans, after the aerial assault on Crete demonstrated the inadequacy of existing paratroop weapons; in the case of the Russians, after observing the superiority of German small arms to current Russian weapons.
Assault rifles will not be developed until the technology can support them and the perceived need for them exists. Neither is really possible before the late nineteenth century without a very early POD (or PODs).
1) Readily available machined-steel parts (barrels, bolts, springs, etc.). Wrought iron won't do; it is too susceptible to metal fatigue. The relevant tech was not widely available until the 1890's OTL.
2) Smokeless powders. Black powder fouling would necessitate cleaning the barrel every 20-30 shots to prevent jamming and worse problems, which would make the rate of fire no better than a magazine-fed breechloader, and the latter weapon is more accurate. Such powders were not widely available until the 1890's OTL.
3) Brass cartridges. While it is possible to use paper or cloth cartridges, they are susceptible to moisture and more vulnerable to damage. Brass cartridge weapons were just coming into use in the 1860's and were not widespread until the 1880's.
That just makes the weapons technically possible; to get them built there has to be a perceived need for them as well. IOTL that did not happen until WW II, and true assault rifles did not appear until 1944 (StG44).
Why not earlier? Let's review the history. Prior to the 1850's armies used single shot muzzle-loading smoothbore weapons. They did so because breechloading weapons were inefficient and unreliable; the close tolerances necessary for proper breechloading weapons were simply not possible with the methods and materials of the time. The weapons were smoothbore because they could be loaded faster and were less susceptible to fouling than rifles. With these weapons the effective range was no more than 150 yards and volume of fire counted for more than accuracy, which meant large masses of troops firing at close range into other masses of troops.
The Minie rifle and its successors changed that. Fully as fast to load as a smoothbore, accurate to 300 yards or more, and less susceptible to fouling (because the tighter fitting bullet tended to scrape residue out of the barrel when it was fired) they were immediate successes. Troops using linear tactics were slaughtered facing these weapons (casualty rates in ACW battles regularly exceeded 33% of the troops involved). By the end of the Franco-Prussian War most people had gotten the message; frontal attacks were eschewed and troops took full advantage of available cover.
The advent of breechloading rifles merely reinforced this lesson; they were accurate to even longer ranges (as much as 1000 yards), could be loaded from a prone position, and had much higher rates of fire than muzzleloaders. Magazine rifles offered increased rates of fire, but the basic principles remained the same as for Minie rifles.
Until the later stages of WW I the tactical thinking remained the same as at the end of the Franco-Prussian War; massed aimed rifle fire was king. Defense was superior to attack; strategy consisted of maneuvering to position one's force where the enemy would have to attack it in circumstances favorable to the defender.
In those circumstances what advantages would an assault rifle offer to the user? Since engagements were expected to be at long range, the shorter effective range would be a handicap. Ammunition supply would be a problem, especially in the opening stages of the war when manufacturing had not yet increased to meet the needs of existing weapons, let alone these. The different type of ammunition used would be a further handicap (most machine guns of the period used the same ammunition as the rifles). Given the tactics of the time such weapons would actually be detrimental to the users.
IOTL assault rifles were developed to fill a perceived need. In the case of the Germans, after the aerial assault on Crete demonstrated the inadequacy of existing paratroop weapons; in the case of the Russians, after observing the superiority of German small arms to current Russian weapons.
Assault rifles will not be developed until the technology can support them and the perceived need for them exists. Neither is really possible before the late nineteenth century without a very early POD (or PODs).
A Lee Metford carbine issued with multiple ten round detachable box magazines will give you most of the advantages of an assualt rifle without the practicle difficulties of using black powder in an automatic or semi automatic rifle. If you can stop the War Office from digging it's heels in over having a repeater at all you could possibly get them in service in time for the Zulu and 1st Boer Wars.
In 1879 (Zulu War) they'll still be black powder weapons, with all the problems associated with them; smokeless powders are ten years away. The initial rate of fire will be higher, but the sustained rate will be no better than single shot weapons, which are cheaper to produce. The advantage over the Martini will be minor at best and not worth the trouble of converting. Not until smokeless powders come into regular use will this change.
The essence of an assault rifle is that it can be used for controllable automatic fire, at least in short bursts, when required at shortish ranges. Mind you, I have never fired an assault rifle with what I consider controllable automatic fire unless it has a heavy barrel and a bipod. We call these machine guns.
This the Lee Metford couldn't do. Despite my grandfather's undoubted expertise in rapid fire as a Victorian squaddie that he later took to France in 1914. Nor could the 1866 Winchester which is why I used it as a quasi assault rifle example.
Now we must not take the breech loader as being more accurate than a muzzle loader. The Enfield was frequently used to suppress light artillery fire through it's aimable (if not pinpoint accurate) 1,000 yard range. It's successors were no better. In Peking the Royal Marines tended to borrow Martinis instead of their Lee Metfords if they wanted to snipe at longer range.
By the 1870s there were steels generally available to use in gun making. Hence the introduction of steel barrels and coil springs instead of the old wrought iron and V springs.
So, as I showed in a post above, by the late 1880's all the technology was in place (though capable of improvement) but the concept was not.
To cause a 19th century assault rifle to come about then we need to find a way for some user to see the opportunity. I offered the Mexicans as a Mondragon assault rifle army to make best use of a peasant army. Perhaps someone else can offer other possible users?
The British in the South African war would have been in a worse position on the open veldt with assault rifles in being completely out ranged by Boer full size rifles.
How about the French? The 1866 Chassepot was only modified to take brass cartridges, later smokeless, as the Gras beloved of Balkan insurgents. Maybe they could have gone a step further and chosen a rifle to match their offensive bent in tactics?
Or the Turks with a peasant army in war?
This the Lee Metford couldn't do. Despite my grandfather's undoubted expertise in rapid fire as a Victorian squaddie that he later took to France in 1914. Nor could the 1866 Winchester which is why I used it as a quasi assault rifle example.
Now we must not take the breech loader as being more accurate than a muzzle loader. The Enfield was frequently used to suppress light artillery fire through it's aimable (if not pinpoint accurate) 1,000 yard range. It's successors were no better. In Peking the Royal Marines tended to borrow Martinis instead of their Lee Metfords if they wanted to snipe at longer range.
By the 1870s there were steels generally available to use in gun making. Hence the introduction of steel barrels and coil springs instead of the old wrought iron and V springs.
So, as I showed in a post above, by the late 1880's all the technology was in place (though capable of improvement) but the concept was not.
To cause a 19th century assault rifle to come about then we need to find a way for some user to see the opportunity. I offered the Mexicans as a Mondragon assault rifle army to make best use of a peasant army. Perhaps someone else can offer other possible users?
The British in the South African war would have been in a worse position on the open veldt with assault rifles in being completely out ranged by Boer full size rifles.
How about the French? The 1866 Chassepot was only modified to take brass cartridges, later smokeless, as the Gras beloved of Balkan insurgents. Maybe they could have gone a step further and chosen a rifle to match their offensive bent in tactics?
Or the Turks with a peasant army in war?
The Lee Metford was designed with black powder in mind and so had wide shallow rifleing to reduce fouling.
Reduce is not the same as eliminate, especially if used in the circumstances you want the greatest rate of fire.
Yes to 2) and 3), but I wouldn't overstate 1). The Sten Gun was no great marvel of precision engineering and yet it was enormously successful in certain roles. True, it had its issues; nevertheless the engineering of the 1850s and 1860s was well up to that standard at least (assuming someone got what would certainly have been a revolutionary idea). My family owns several firearms from that era, and there's some sweet and clean work in them. At the very least, the engineering skills and industry existed to produce some sort of automatic weapon, if the conceptual leap had occurred.