Deleted member 1487
Very true and holds for the numbers I've seen for Barbarossa. Ammo almost never ran out despite shortages in every other area because it was so light in comparison to the rest.
Earliest possible assault rifle, earliest plausible adoption
- Thread starter M79
- Start date
ww1 was when the attitude started to change, and in large part due to those stats, prior to that many nations insisted on mag cut offs due to the belief that the ROF on bolt action rifles was excessive
food and fodder can be sourced locally when you're conquering africa,
ammo needs to shipped over
240 lbs per man? for context if we are only talking about .303 ammo that's over 4000 rounds per man at a time when 100 rounds was the standard loadout
i'm pretty sure that you can feed an man for a month at a lower price then 4000+ rounds of ammo
marathag
Banned
That's shells and small arms in total
for Arty
even with prodigious use in combat during 1915, it was a fraction of Food and Fodder
You can read what 'Living off the Land' had for impact of the Natives with the Brits chasing Lettow-Vorbeck around SW Africa.
The Natives really didn't have much to spare, tens of thousands starved to death
https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/165710-cost-of-munitions/
using the lowest costs and the production #'s you so helpfully provided for a months production of ammo the brits spent
46,000 £ on 18 lber shells,
23,250 £ on .303 rounds
can you show that the food bill cost over 69,000 £ to feed the troops for a month?
i going to be brutal, i don't think Lettow-Vorbeck gave a damn, and i'm not sure if the british would have cared if they'd been the ones to do it,
as it turns out colonialism was an abusive policy that generally benefited europe at the expense of the colony
Deleted member 1487
That's not a .30 caliber short, it's a different cartridge altogether. And prohibited by the OP.
Why is it prohibited? It’s an intermediate cartridge, especially with a spitzer-tip bullet. A select fire M1 carbine is the most realistic option for earliest “mass adoption” by any army.
Cavalry by 1901 don’t fight from horseback in US doctrine. They are in effect dragoons, so the issue of working the bolt one handed isn’t a significant issue.
Also, why wouldn’t “Big Army” jump in to stop this idea? You really think the conservative General Staff that were slow to even begin acquiring machine guns are going to put an automatic carbine in the hands of every cavalryman? I can see it possibly as an automatic rifle that would get issued at the platoon level in the 1900’s, but not realistic one for every trooper.
marathag
Banned
Although the United States first tested the Maxim gun in 1888 with good results, no action was taken at the time. A relatively heavy, rapid-fire weapon was unsuited to constabulary actions against Indians and the US saw no prospect of a European-style war. The Army again picked up the Vickers-Maxim gun in 1906, experimenting with it to establish how the different combat arms could best use the weapon. The infantry liked it, but the cavalry thought it too heavy and unwieldy. That led General William Crozier, the Army’s Chief of Ordnance, to seek a weapon that would be lighter as well as simpler to make and operate.
Crozier was soon in contact with Laurence Benét, the US representative of the Hotchkiss Company, which was based in France and named for its American founder, B. B. Hotchkiss. Benét himself was American-born – in fact, the son of a former Chief of Ordnance – and a few years earlier had developed a light machine rifle with the help of his assistant André Mercié. In 1909 Crozier adopted the Benét–Mercié as the Army’s first standard automatic weapon. At 30 pounds it was lighter than a heavy machine gun but hardly dainty. It was air- cooled, cheap to make, and easy to maintain, containing only 25 parts; a folding stock made it highly portable. The Benét–Mercié continued in service until 1917, serving the Army in Mexico in 1913 and 1916. But in the field its defects soon became apparent. The infantry disliked it as too light and unable to sustain fire, and hence unsuitable for defense. The cavalry found it unreliable due to its close machining tolerances, which led to frequent jams. In trying to satisfy everyone, it had satisfied none: no one understood that both a light assault rifle and a heavy machine gun were needed.
Despite Crozier’s efforts, the Army did not incorporate automatic weapons into its combat doctrine. As late as 1917 its Field Service Regulations stipulated, “Machine guns are emergency weapons. They are used when their fire is in the nature of a surprise to the enemy at the crises of combat. Their effective use will be for short periods of time – at most but a few minutes – until silenced by the enemy.”
The Benet-Mercie was used with the Punitive Expedition(mostly a Cavalry operation, not infantry )in Mexico, but did not do well, the men had not really trained with it enough, with many difficulties is fitting the clip to the weapon.
With an Remington semiautomatic in 1901, you have a dependable, easy to load and shoot weapon in the hands of every Cav trooper, that will allow faster and more accurate fire: this was proven with the Garand/Johnson&M1903 trials just before WWII.
As above, the Rem is far perfect, and not a machine gun, that seemed to fit with the USArmy doctrine, such as it was at that time
But it could grow into an Assault Weapon over the years, by time of US entry
Crozier was soon in contact with Laurence Benét, the US representative of the Hotchkiss Company, which was based in France and named for its American founder, B. B. Hotchkiss. Benét himself was American-born – in fact, the son of a former Chief of Ordnance – and a few years earlier had developed a light machine rifle with the help of his assistant André Mercié. In 1909 Crozier adopted the Benét–Mercié as the Army’s first standard automatic weapon. At 30 pounds it was lighter than a heavy machine gun but hardly dainty. It was air- cooled, cheap to make, and easy to maintain, containing only 25 parts; a folding stock made it highly portable. The Benét–Mercié continued in service until 1917, serving the Army in Mexico in 1913 and 1916. But in the field its defects soon became apparent. The infantry disliked it as too light and unable to sustain fire, and hence unsuitable for defense. The cavalry found it unreliable due to its close machining tolerances, which led to frequent jams. In trying to satisfy everyone, it had satisfied none: no one understood that both a light assault rifle and a heavy machine gun were needed.
Despite Crozier’s efforts, the Army did not incorporate automatic weapons into its combat doctrine. As late as 1917 its Field Service Regulations stipulated, “Machine guns are emergency weapons. They are used when their fire is in the nature of a surprise to the enemy at the crises of combat. Their effective use will be for short periods of time – at most but a few minutes – until silenced by the enemy.”
The Benet-Mercie was used with the Punitive Expedition(mostly a Cavalry operation, not infantry )in Mexico, but did not do well, the men had not really trained with it enough, with many difficulties is fitting the clip to the weapon.
With an Remington semiautomatic in 1901, you have a dependable, easy to load and shoot weapon in the hands of every Cav trooper, that will allow faster and more accurate fire: this was proven with the Garand/Johnson&M1903 trials just before WWII.
As above, the Rem is far perfect, and not a machine gun, that seemed to fit with the USArmy doctrine, such as it was at that time
But it could grow into an Assault Weapon over the years, by time of US entry
it's not, and i half suspect that this is spillover from here
I think in the guerrilla phase of the Boer war, an assault rifle could prove very useful for the Boer commandos in ambush attacks.
Third phase: Guerrilla war (September 1900 – May 1902)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Third_phase:_Guerrilla_war_(September_1900_–_May_1902)
Third phase: Guerrilla war (September 1900 – May 1902)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Third_phase:_Guerrilla_war_(September_1900_–_May_1902)
Last edited:
Deleted member 1487
It's really a hot pistol cartridge more than a real intermediate. Also I apparently confused another thread with this one, OP said nothing about .30 carbine. But there were plenty of intermediates before the M1 Carbine, so it doesn't even really fit into the earliest possible assault rifle option.
Yes. When we've got a few threads on small arms/cartridges going it isn't hard to mix up a few details.
The OP specifies earliest plausible “mass adoption”. I highly doubt you are going to get any Army to mass adopt an assault rifle prior to an alt-M1 Automatic Carbine.
The German MKb-42 is a contender, but Germany just doesn’t have the excess industry to spare on getting it into the field in mass numbers with all their other commitments.
Yes, Britain was able to massively increase .303 production during WW1, but quality suffered. Loose-tolerance British .303 ammo jammed in tight-tolerance Canadian Ross rifles. The long-term solution was boring out Ross breeches to accept slightly over-sized British ammo. Even if the slightly over-sized ammo was caused by worn-out tools, it still created a hassle that would have been even worse in semi-automatic weapons.
Just to dismiss the American M-1 carbine … it was really designed a replacement for .45 calibre pistols for support troops like drivers, signalers, etc. A detachable shoulder stock (see artillery Luger) would have improved accuracy almost as much. In poorly-trained hands, pistols are more dangerous to the shooter than they are to the enemy. A post-WW2 survey of wounds concluded that half the pistol wounds suffered by American soldiers were done by .45 calibre bullets!
Pistols are short-ranged and hopelessly inaccurate in the hands of any but the best-practiced shooters.
Pistols are short-ranged and hopelessly inaccurate in the hands of any but the best-practiced shooters.
The OTL kick starter was the STG44 whatever may have been played with previously. The Germans had SMGs and they were only OK out to 100-200 metres. !00 for aimed fire and 200 to suppress. They had battle rifles that were way over powered for the actual typical range of 300 odd metres. Thus they split the difference with a short rifle round in selective fire form and saw it was also a (poor but useful) LMG substitute in the 0-300 metre actual typical battle ranges. I do not see the assault rifle happening unless you have experienced that SMG/Battle Rifle duality too see there was a gap.
The Italians met the gap cheaply by reducing the sights of their low power battle Carcano rifles to 150 metre fixed sights. The Finns had a special case and dropped their Carcano fixed sights to 100 metres. It does, perhaps, suggest a possible POD whereby the Carcano or Arisaka low power battle rifles were replaced by semi automatic large capacity box magazine carbines. Maybe with an even lesser loading for the shorter barrels like the OTL 6.5×50mm Arisaka genso round? Not a conscious attempt to make an assault rifle class of weapon but doctrinally a shorter range higher firepower battle rifle. Italy and Japan had small arms industrial links so maybe a joint venture in some form?
Less powder in already smaller than average cases would allow shorter rounds. Either shorter cases or bullets set further into the case. Handy for magazine depth. Maybe a stripper loaded smaller magazine like the Simonov would have been more acceptable back then.
The Italians met the gap cheaply by reducing the sights of their low power battle Carcano rifles to 150 metre fixed sights. The Finns had a special case and dropped their Carcano fixed sights to 100 metres. It does, perhaps, suggest a possible POD whereby the Carcano or Arisaka low power battle rifles were replaced by semi automatic large capacity box magazine carbines. Maybe with an even lesser loading for the shorter barrels like the OTL 6.5×50mm Arisaka genso round? Not a conscious attempt to make an assault rifle class of weapon but doctrinally a shorter range higher firepower battle rifle. Italy and Japan had small arms industrial links so maybe a joint venture in some form?
Less powder in already smaller than average cases would allow shorter rounds. Either shorter cases or bullets set further into the case. Handy for magazine depth. Maybe a stripper loaded smaller magazine like the Simonov would have been more acceptable back then.
Last edited:
The .303 round was made to match the Lee and toleranced for wartime production. The Ross was a fine target rifle but toleranced for peacetime ammunition. One might opine that the problem was the Ross being too fussy not the Lee being too sloppy. Ironically by the time the Ross was reworked to function well in a wartime environment it had been withdrawn. The Latvians standardised on it post war and thought highly of it. Charlie Ross was a bit of a tit though.
marathag
Banned
Probably more so than the Ross, and was one of the first to have a shield safety that closes up much of the action.
But once you do get a lot of mud in the Receiver, you almost need a armorer to properly clean that all out. The Rem 8 trigger group was hardly changed when it was used in a variety of later weapons, like the Garand and AK. Why reinvent the wheel, when you have a great one from the start?
Deleted member 1487
I mean technically the Fedorov was the first. Arguably the automatic rifle is an assault rifle, because it is an automatic weapon that is meant to be portable for assaults. The BAR is basically the first in terms of mass adoption. The earliest version of it was the Cei Rigotti, it just wasn't adopted. There are plausible scenarios for it to get adopted, as it was mechanically sound, and if not that, then several other options existed well before the M1/M2 Carbine.