Any noticeable difference if semi-auto rifles were the standard in WW1?

Semi-Auto rifles were in their infancy around the time WW1 rolled around but they did exist at least since the turn of the century.

If innovation had sped up to the point where they became mostly standard issue for the major players, would there have been any noticeable effect on how the war would have gone?
 
more dead earlier in the war, battle tactics were still "over the top and into the guns" Napoleonic line up and charge didn't work well going into machine guns, giving the infantry awaiting your charge autoloaders just means they shoot you quicker
 
French might have stopped the Germans further East, France did not have a huge number of Machine guns yet, I recall something like 2000, compared to 10,000 plus for Germany. The well trained British regulars could use their bolt actions to sub for Massed machine gun fire, possibly with Semi Automatics the less well trained French could use rifle fire to do the same
 
Note that the British ordered troops to walk into No-Mans Land, with magazine cutoffs on rifles set and bayonets fixed.
No difference at first. French did field autoloaders later in the War, after all.


However, the first months of air combat where observers used bolt action rifles and pistols, that would be different.
 
not much no, just replace bolts with semiautos, machine guns and arty pretty much means that nothing changes
 
It would have major difference for Germans Stoßtruppen (stormtroopers)
They infiltrate the Allied defenses at previously identified weak points, and destroy or capture enemy headquarters and artillery strongpoints.
With Grenades and MP 18, the first practical submachine guns and infamous "battle spade"
here a semiautos rifle or submachine guns would make there assault more effective

In fact during WW1 were some German proposals for a semi-autos rifle/submachine gun with shorter version of 7.92×57mm Mauser caliber, analog to 7.92×33mm Kurz from ww2
But the Oberste Heeresleitung (german Supreme Army Command) show no interest in this...
 
Major logistics problems as the belligerents run short of ammunition more quickly. Probably slightly less emphasis on the machine gun, given the volume of fire a platoon with autoloaders can deliver. Possibly an earlier search for a lighter, intermediate, cartridge.
 
Are these contemporary Semi autos because if they are then after a day or two in the field they jam and the Infantry are reduced to using bayonets.

If they are WWII rifles then the US, Russians and French are fine, the British are in trouble unless the Belgians or Czechs can pull them out of the muck. The Germans didnt get a good semi auto till the STG44, G41s werent reliable (Gas traps have never worked in the field) and the G43 has a nasty habit of trying to blow your face off when the bolt housing cracks under prolonged use.

Still Heavy Machine Guns, Mortars and Artillery cause most casualties.
 
The difference would be absolutely meaningless. If anything, things are worse for the infantry on the ground. Bolt-action rifles are much, much more reliable in the mud. Especially compared to early self-loaders.
 
Even had they been available the main question would be if any of the main belligerents would actually USE them. Most armies subscribed to the idea that giving a solider a rapid fire weapon allowed them 'waste' more ammo and aim less so they actually considered the bolt-action rifle a way to 'calm' them into aiming and taking each shot seriously. Despite having autoloaders ready near the end of WWI most nations didn't consider actually switching until WWII was beginning.

Randy
 
I'm going to say barely, but at least it might spark the possibility of making LMGs out of semi-auto rifles a lot sooner than OTL.
 
Top