AHC/WI: Germany reverse engineers Entente weapons/artillery

[AJE]

Historically Pershing delayed the BAR's combat introduction because of a fear that Germany would copy it if it was introduced too early to affect the war, but I wondered how likely it was that Germany actually would reverse engineer Entente weapons? To my knowledge there weren't a whole lot of weapons that were obviously superior to every option available to Germany, and the only cases where Germany openly adopted allied design features for its own weapons was for the A7V/U and LK II (basically a German FT-17) tanks.

So what would it take for Germany to reverse engineer and re-chamber more Entente weapons to produce as their own? Possible examples include:

Spoiler: Examples

-Cannone da 75/27 Modello 11- Designed in France and exported to and used by Italy, this gun was probably the best light field gun of any kind used in WWI, and probably through most of WWII. It had the light weight of the FK 96 n.A, the range and rate of fire of the famous French 75 Modele 1897 (it was designed by the same person who designed the French 75, Joseph Albert Deport), and a much greater traverse and elevation than either (10-20 times as much!). This was because it was the first gun to include a modern split trail design. Rechambered to 7.7 cm, it would have made an excellent replacement for the FK 96 n.A. and FK 16. It might have even prevented the FK 16 from ever being produced if it could be reverse engineered fast enough (it was first encountered when Italy entered the war in early 1915, by early 1916 the FK 16 was in production). Ideally, the german 10.5 cm leFH 16 would also be redesigned to use this carriage.

-Stokes Mortar- Basically superior in almost every way to the 7.62 cm Leichte Minenwerfer except for range, it would have made an excellent shorter-ranged lighter supplement to the Minenwerfer, and it also was superior in just about every way imaginable to the Granatenwerfer M.16 (though it did have a disadvantage in its tendency to dig into the ground rather than explode on the surface). In fact, if they were "inspired" by the Granatenwerfer M.16 to use fin-stabilized projectiles, they might be able to match the Leichte Minenwerfer in range as well, and thus completely replace it.

-QF 3.7-inch Mountain Howitzer- the first mountain howitzer to have a split trail, and had much superior traverse and shell size in comparison to the Skoda 75 mm M.15 mountain howitzer. A lighter shell or rechambering to 75 mm might have made the gun match the Skoda in range, and possibly in weight as well.

-155 GPF- quite simply, the best heavy field gun of WWI, since it used a split trail and could be towed in one load at high speed. A single gun, weighing little more (comparatively) than the 15 cm Kanone 16 could cover over 200 square kilometers of ground due to its 60 degree traverse and 19.5 km range. I'm not sure if the Germans ever captured any, but if they were reverse engineered to use the German 15 cm barrel and charge from the 15 cm Kanone 16, they would have had even greater range, at least over 20 km.

- Meunier A6 semi-automatic carbine- this was briefly used in 1916, and due to its raiding uses, undoubtedly captured by the German Army in some quantities. It was accurate and reliable, unlike the German Mondragon and Mauser self-loading rifle prototypes, which were quickly relegated to aircraft use where the working environment was clean. A reverse-engineered Meunier in 7.92 Mauser would likely be very effective, and easily adapted to box magazine feeding and select fire to counter the BAR if/when it was deployed.

-37 mm Mle 1916 TRP trench gun- Yet another example of superb French artillery design, the Germans didn't introduce an equivalent until 1918 with the 37 mm TAK, and this gun was better in every way.

-White model AM armored car- The best heavy armored car of WWI (armed with a 37 mm cannon), and much superior to the oversized and underpowered Erhardt EV/4 and Bussing A5P.

-Lancia 1ZM and Rolls-Royce armored car- the best overall armored cars of WWI, and again much superior to their German counterparts

-BAR- the original idea behind this thread, if it was deployed earlier, Germany would have no answer to it unless it was reverse engineered.

 

[Tallil2long]

The thing is, none of these decisively altered the remorseless mathematics of trench warfare for the nations that fielded them (although the tank came closest, but I doubt the German war economy can build many of these, anyway).

If Germany adopts some or all of these weapons, it won't win the war for them. The effort will, however, badly disrupt the production of standard weapons and ammunition.

 

[AJE]

The thing is, none of these decisively altered the remorseless mathematics of trench warfare for the nations that fielded them (although the tank came closest, but I doubt the German war economy can build many of these, anyway).

If Germany adopts some or all of these weapons, it won't win the war for them. The effort will, however, badly disrupt the production of standard weapons and ammunition.

What if they were introduced in place of other new weapons like the OTL FK 16 and leFH 16 (which ITL would be cancelled and redesigned, respectively)?

There are also other efficiency improvements that could have been adopted but weren't, like a single master drawing for all factories to follow, steel or sintered iron driving bands (instead of copper), and ammunition casings made of laquered steel rather than brass (though the last 2 would require some research and development before they got them right). If all of them were introduced at the same time (meaning factories would only have production disrupted once), it might be worthwhile to bite the bullet and accept the temporary loss of production efficiency.

Sources: http://www.cruffler.com/Features/FEB-02/historic-february02.html - On German production efficiency of machine guns (which presumably applied to the rest of German weapons in WWI)

During the war, each factory producing machine guns in Germany had its own set of master drawings. Each set of drawings was unique and reflected updates and fixes devised by each factory over the course of production. As a result the same part made by different factories would possibly not interchange. The Imperial Rifle Examining Commission, in cooperation with the Spandau Arsenal, prepared a draft set of master drawings, including required tolerances for all significant dimensions for both the MG08 and the MG08/15. A meeting was called, and representatives of all commercial and government facilities producing machine guns attended. During the meeting it was proposed that the use of the new set of master drawings be made mandatory for machine gun production. The manufacturers' representatives then asked whether the machine guns produced under the master drawings would be required to pass a function test for acceptance, or if conformance to the master drawings would suffice. The implications were clear. The military could have its master drawings but only at the cost of a loss of production while they were put into effect and the bugs worked out of the system. The proposal for master drawings was shelved in light of wartime exigencies. It should be noted that master drawings were implemented in the postwarReichswehr.

Despite the number of other designs in use by the German forces, the basic Maxim mechanism was the predominant German automatic small arm of the war, and it was considered the point of departure from which machine guns for specialized roles were developed. However, when it became necessary to modify operating components, great care was taken so as not to upset production schedules and deliveries of standard guns. The situation was markedly different for accessories. The MG08 and MG08/15 were liberally provided with all manner of accessories. Some of these accessories were tools for maintaining and repairing the gun. Others were designed to enhance the gun's capabilities, such as devices to permit night firing, indirect fire, antiaircraft fire, firing over the heads of friendly troops, and firing during severe weather. While the number of accessory items was very large, their production did not affect production of any part of the basic mechanism.

https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2012/03/look-back-amazingly-bad-gun-design.html - on the other efficiency improvements that were possible (please disregard the blogger's political views and his assertions that the improvements could have been made before WWI, but I think the bits about steel ammunition casings and sintered iron/steel driving bands had merit, and there was a chance research into the improvements and their implementation could have been done during the war).

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Surely the Lewis gun was a bigger game changer than the BAR?

By the time the BAR starts appearing - (Sept 1918) the war is all but over - meanwhile the Lewis gun was the most common Machine gun after the much derided Chauchat and had been on the Western front since 1915

If the Germans were going to reverse Engineer anything.....

 

[Reader347]

Surely the Lewis gun was a bigger game changer than the BAR?

By the time the BAR starts appearing - (Sept 1918) the war is all but over - meanwhile the Lewis gun was the most common Machine gun after the much derided Chauchat and had been on the Western front since 1915

If the Germans were going to reverse Engineer anything.....

The Belgians were making, and using, Lewis guns at the start of the war. And a Hotchkiss light machine gun, benet-mercie(?). Plenty of pics show Germans using captured units.

 

[edgeworthy]

Surely the Lewis gun was a bigger game changer than the BAR?

By the time the BAR starts appearing - (Sept 1918) the war is all but over - meanwhile the Lewis gun was the most common Machine gun after the much derided Chauchat and had been on the Western front since 1915

If the Germans were going to reverse Engineer anything.....

True captured examples were used with such frequency, especially by the Stosstruppen, that instruction in its operation and care was included as part of their machine-gun crew training.

 

[MrP]

The thing is, none of these decisively altered the remorseless mathematics of trench warfare for the nations that fielded them (although the tank came closest, but I doubt the German war economy can build many of these, anyway).

This. No single weapon or even group of weapons would have been a game-changer. In any case Germany used the Madsen LMG all along, so it new about the tactical potential of man-portable full automatic weapons.

 

[AJE]

Surely the Lewis gun was a bigger game changer than the BAR?

By the time the BAR starts appearing - (Sept 1918) the war is all but over - meanwhile the Lewis gun was the most common Machine gun after the much derided Chauchat and had been on the Western front since 1915

If the Germans were going to reverse Engineer anything.....

The reason I didn't include the Lewis or any other LMG besides the BAR is because Germany actually did have an answer to those weapons: the MG14 Parabellum. This was probably the best machine gun design of WWI (and probably one of my favorite machine gun designs in general). Not only did it feed from a belt instead of a magazine (could hold a drum with a 100 round belt inside when necessary for single-soldier operation), it actually weighed less than either the MG15 n.A., or the Lewis gun (9.5 kg vs 13 kg when both are air cooled). It also had a water-cooled variant, which was still considerably lighter than the MG08 or MG08/15 while having virtually no disadvantages compared to them. The only reason they didn't produce more is because doing so would disrupt production of the existing MG08 family, but I have no illusions that if Germany decided they really needed a light machine gun like the Lewis (at the cost of disrupting MG08 production), they would have just made more MG14's instead of reverse-engineering the Lewis.

MG14 infantry use info

As for the BAR being somewhat late in the war, I was writing this with a different AHC (Click here for shameless self promotion) in mind where Germany holds out longer due to better management. Of course, better management includes choosing whether or not to reverse engineer superior Entente weaponry.

 

[NoMommsen]

TBH : Germany didn't needed to copy or reverse engineer weapon technology. They had ample designs in their cupboards for everything (without perhaps as the only exception of the Stokes-mortar).
Mauser built and designed several semi-automatic rifles already prior to 1900.
The MG 14 as a light machine gun you mentioned already.
There were Rheinmetall quick-firing field gun designs (opposite to the seperate loading used 7.7 cm by Krupp).
There was the Burstyn Motorcanon as a tank predecessor shown to Germany in 1912.

The question much more important is not 'having them' but 'willing to use them', and with it the tactical concepts for their usage.
And that's what the germans lacked.

 

[AJE]

TBH : Germany didn't needed to copy or reverse engineer weapon technology. They had ample designs in their cupboards for everything (without perhaps as the only exception of the Stokes-mortar).
Mauser built and designed several semi-automatic rifles already prior to 1900.
The MG 14 as a light machine gun you mentioned already.
There were Rheinmetall quick-firing field gun designs (opposite to the seperate loading used 7.7 cm by Krupp).
There was the Burstyn Motorcanon as a tank predecessor shown to Germany in 1912.

The question much more important is not 'having them' but 'willing to use them', and with it the tactical concepts for their usage.
And that's what the germans lacked.

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Mauser rifle and Rheinmetall quick-firing field gun designs were inferior to their foreign (mostly French) counterparts. The rifle was overly complex and susceptible to dirt (at least much more so than the Meunier), and the quick-firing field gun lacked a split trail which gave the Modello 11 much more traverse and elevation.

 

[fastmongrel]

The Belgians were making, and using, Lewis guns at the start of the war. And a Hotchkiss light machine gun, benet-mercie(?). Plenty of pics show Germans using captured units.

The Belgians did have a few Lewis guns at the start of the war but they werent making them they were built by in England by BSA and were in .303.

 

[Redbeard]

The Madsen LMG was available and for sale from 1901 and would have been much more suited for Stosstruppen tactics than the BAR. The Russians did buy a number before the war with Japan and some of these were captured and used by the Germans, but AFAIK not copied or bought in numbers. I guess the MG 08 was much cheaper and anyway "invented here". That is was quite heavy to carry in an assault wasn't a problem for the decision maker.

Anyway I doubt any existing weaponsystem could have helped Germany, but someone inventing and implementing SP artillery might be very helpful.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Why on earth would they do this? the German forces didn't lack for weapon types. They also had a huge NIH problem, so changing THAT would require changes that far outweigh the impact of a couple of Allied weapons.

Remember, when they encountered the T-34 tank, their response was not to copy it, but to build a new German tank to match it. If they don't reverse engineer a T-34, I can't see them reverse engineering much of anything.

 

[fastmongrel]

I have done a bit of research and I cant find any of the major powers in WWI or WWII reverse engineering anything of importance apart from the Soviets copying the B29 post WWII and that was reckoned so expensive a new design to the same spec would have been far cheaper. Maybe taking a production model and trying to build a prototype then setting up a production line from it isnt as easy as we would like to think.

 

[NoMommsen]

... I cant find any of the major powers in WWI or WWII reverse engineering anything of importance ...

First from my head :
MP 3008 or 'Gerät Potsdam'
The russian copies of the DC-3
Does the Mikulin-M17 motor counts ? A wee bit early as a licnese/copy of the BMW VI ?

 

[edgeworthy]

First from my head :
MP 3008 or 'Gerät Potsdam'
The russian copies of the DC-3
Does the Mikulin-M17 motor counts ? A wee bit early as a licnese/copy of the BMW VI ?

Does this count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester_submachine_gun,
or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower,_Portable,_No_2?

Both British copies of German designs.

 

[fastmongrel]

First from my head :
MP 3008 or 'Gerät Potsdam'
The russian copies of the DC-3
Does the Mikulin-M17 motor counts ? A wee bit early as a licnese/copy of the BMW VI ?

The Mp3008 was a cheap and nasty rip off of a gun that was a cheap and nasty rip off of the MP18 and made a Sten look like it was hand made suit by a Saville Row tailor

The Lisunov Li-2 was a license built DC3 with some changes to suit Russian metric fittings and winter use, first built in 1938 in a factory built with US help.

The Mikulin M17 was a licence built BMW V1 with some changes to suit first built in 1930 in a factory built by the Germans.

Apart from the horror that was the MP3008 I cant see that anything matches the OP.

 

[AJE]

Why on earth would they do this? the German forces didn't lack for weapon types. They also had a huge NIH problem, so changing THAT would require changes that far outweigh the impact of a couple of Allied weapons.

Remember, when they encountered the T-34 tank, their response was not to copy it, but to build a new German tank to match it. If they don't reverse engineer a T-34, I can't see them reverse engineering much of anything.

The Madsen LMG was available and for sale from 1901 and would have been much more suited for Stosstruppen tactics than the BAR. The Russians did buy a number before the war with Japan and some of these were captured and used by the Germans, but AFAIK not copied or bought in numbers. I guess the MG 08 was much cheaper and anyway "invented here". That is was quite heavy to carry in an assault wasn't a problem for the decision maker.

Anyway I doubt any existing weaponsystem could have helped Germany, but someone inventing and implementing SP artillery might be very helpful.

I have done a bit of research and I cant find any of the major powers in WWI or WWII reverse engineering anything of importance apart from the Soviets copying the B29 post WWII and that was reckoned so expensive a new design to the same spec would have been far cheaper. Maybe taking a production model and trying to build a prototype then setting up a production line from it isnt as easy as we would like to think.

While I may have been wrong as to the practicality of reverse engineering weapons, plenty of weapons were reverse engineered or license-produced in WWI and WWII by the Germans. The MG08 itself was a license-produced Maxim, the 8cm Granatwerfer 34 was a license-produced Brandt mle 27 mortar, and the Panzerschreck was a reverse-engineered (and product-improved) Bazooka, on top of the other examples mentioned.

Also, the Germans did reverse engineer the T-34 (or produce as close a copy as they could while retaining their own standards, engines, and components). The resulting VK3002 (DB) looked like a more angular T-34, but it was rejected in favor of the VK3002 (M) which became the Panther. The reason was that the VK3002 (M) had torsion bar suspension, and it used an existing turret design instead of requiring factories to tool up for a new one. It also used a 3-man instead of a 2-man turret.

 

[fastmongrel]

Reverse engineering is completely different to licence building. Reverse engineering means taking something apart and copying exactly then building an exact copy. Not easy when the example you have might be worn or damaged, you have to do lots and lots of testing to try and work out how the designer intended it to work and be manufactured cheaply and reliably on a production line.

Licence building is different its all done for you the prototype the blueprints and the vital instructions on how to manufacture are included in the deal. That's why buying a licence to build anything more complicated than a nail is so expensive.

A good example of the problems of reverse engineering is the deal Poland made with FN of Belgium for a licence to build the Colt BAR in the 1920s. Poland bought the licence but FN hadn't actually built any BARs themselves only sold them for Colt. Colts would not give the plans to FN and it took FNs very good engineers 4 years to get a reliable gun and the production plans ready for the Poles. In fact the Poles got so sick of waiting they did the job themselves and did a better job than FN.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/james-d-julia-polish-wz-28-bar-shooting-history-disassembly/

 

[AJE]

Reverse engineering is completely different to licence building. Reverse engineering means taking something apart and copying exactly then building an exact copy. Not easy when the example you have might be worn or damaged, you have to do lots and lots of testing to try and work out how the designer intended it to work and be manufactured cheaply and reliably on a production line.

Licence building is different its all done for you the prototype the blueprints and the vital instructions on how to manufacture are included in the deal. That's why buying a licence to build anything more complicated than a nail is so expensive.

A good example of the problems of reverse engineering is the deal Poland made with FN of Belgium for a licence to build the Colt BAR in the 1920s. Poland bought the licence but FN hadn't actually built any BARs themselves only sold them for Colt. Colts would not give the plans to FN and it took FNs very good engineers 4 years to get a reliable gun and the production plans ready for the Poles. In fact the Poles got so sick of waiting they did the job themselves and did a better job than FN.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/james-d-julia-polish-wz-28-bar-shooting-history-disassembly/

It seems that the holdups with FN were because of Colt not wanting to sell them the licensing rights, and FN dragging their feet in general. The Poles only took about a year (depending on what month they started making their own technical package) to produce a few prototype guns, and somewhat longer to mass-produce them. Still, if Germany decided to reverse-engineer (or make a similar rifle to) some captured Meunier carbines to 8 mm Mauser starting in mid-1916 (when they were first used, and presumably first captured), how long would it be before they could start fielding rifles?