French adopt semi-auto rifle/automatic rifle weapon system pre-WW1

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

643512 (1).jpg


The French experimented with a 6mm semi-auto rifle/fully automatic rifle weapon system in 1900, but ultimately didn't decide to invest in the system or develop it for a variety of reason.
It seems the system had promise, because it eventually would lead to the MAS-49 rifle using the same gas system. For the sake of argument the French retain the 8mm Lebel for the Hotchkiss machine gun, but use the 6mmx60mm round for infantry rifles and automatic rifles. What sort of impact would that have on the fighting in 1914 and the response of other nations leading up to WW1?
Note that having such a weapon system would give the French a huge firepower advantage in infantry combat relative to nations with bolt action rifles and only heavy MGs, while also butterflying the Chauchat.
 
View attachment 384607

The French experimented with a 6mm semi-auto rifle/fully automatic rifle weapon system in 1900, but ultimately didn't decide to invest in the system or develop it for a variety of reason.
It seems the system had promise, because it eventually would lead to the MAS-49 rifle using the same gas system. For the sake of argument the French retain the 8mm Lebel for the Hotchkiss machine gun, but use the 6mmx60mm round for infantry rifles and automatic rifles. What sort of impact would that have on the fighting in 1914 and the response of other nations leading up to WW1?
Note that having such a weapon system would give the French a huge firepower advantage in infantry combat relative to nations with bolt action rifles and only heavy MGs, while also butterflying the Chauchat.
What I really wonder is if:
1- This weapon would be ready for WW1, since it would need testing and trials
2- Their would have enough political support not only for the change of doctrine but also changing the whole production line for bullet (i dont know if at the time the idea of having two different cartridge caliber would have been popular)
3- Could be produced in enough number to equip a 1.5 million men army before WW1 (if not, it risk of being either a niche weapon or worst, abandonned for a more production friendly gun)
 

Deleted member 1487

What I really wonder is if:
1- This weapon would be ready for WW1, since it would need testing and trials
2- Their would have enough political support not only for the change of doctrine but also changing the whole production line for bullet (i dont know if at the time the idea of having two different cartridge caliber would have been popular)
3- Could be produced in enough number to equip a 1.5 million men army before WW1 (if not, it risk of being either a niche weapon or worst, abandonned for a more production friendly gun)
The prototype was developed in 1900 so they have 14 years to develop it. I'd be surprised it if took more than 5.
Yeah the politics of it is the hard part. Handwavium for the sake of the thread.
If they have 8 years or so since the start of production I don't see why they couldn't equip all active service infantry at a minimum.
 
The prototype was developed in 1900 so they have 14 years to develop it. I'd be surprised it if took more than 5.
Yeah the politics of it is the hard part. Handwavium for the sake of the thread.
If they have 8 years or so since the start of production I don't see why they couldn't equip all active service infantry at a minimum.
French politics were planning a Lebel replacement for 1909, if this gun is ready it would give them 5 years of production
The MAS36 had a production rate of 250 000 for three years (I took the MAS36 because it was a ''second generation gun'', if anyone have better comparison for production rate feel free to correct me)
It give around 500 000 guns for WW1.
If we handwave politics and imagine that the inventor have contact and the gun production start in 1905, it give them 9 years and with MAS36 production rate: 750 000.

It would be enough for the professional army and let the reserve/non-battle line with the Lebel. This would probably reinforce the three-years law and push France to focus on its professional soldiers, especially if concern about the rate of fire and wasted bullet arise.
 

Deleted member 1487

French politics were planning a Lebel replacement for 1909, if this gun is ready it would give them 5 years of production
The MAS36 had a production rate of 250 000 for three years (I took the MAS36 because it was a ''second generation gun'', if anyone have better comparison for production rate feel free to correct me)
It give around 500 000 guns for WW1.
If we handwave politics and imagine that the inventor have contact and the gun production start in 1905, it give them 9 years and with MAS36 production rate: 750 000.

It would be enough for the professional army and let the reserve/non-battle line with the Lebel. This would probably reinforce the three-years law and push France to focus on its professional soldiers, especially if concern about the rate of fire and wasted bullet arise.
That was after the expense of WW1 though, so the MAS36 probably got less funding that a Lebel replacement before WW1 would have due to be far better financial situation.
Still, even 500k such weapons at the start of WW1 would be an enormous advantage, especially compared to the alternative of bayonet charges.

So any thoughts about how other nations respond and what impact it would have on the course of 1914?
 
That was after the expense of WW1 though, so the MAS36 probably got less funding that a Lebel replacement before WW1 would have due to be far better financial situation.
Still, even 500k such weapons at the start of WW1 would be an enormous advantage, especially compared to the alternative of bayonet charges.

So any thoughts about how other nations respond and what impact it would have on the course of 1914?
Ironically, this gun would be loved by the ''offensive at utmost'' faction since it would be considered by them as an ''offensive'' weapon. So probably more charge to bank on their firepower advantage, albeit not bayonnet one, probably ''fire-then-advance''.
The ENT-B1 (the ATL gun) would probably be kept secret for as long as possible, probably just before mass production (obviously to blunt enemy/german reaction to it). By then, Germany would either try to copy the French (probably a sub-machine gun as they were experimenting with full auto pistols) or put more effort on ''anti-infantry'' measures like heavy artilery and machine-gun.
 
View attachment 384607

The French experimented with a 6mm semi-auto rifle/fully automatic rifle weapon system in 1900, but ultimately didn't decide to invest in the system or develop it for a variety of reason.
It seems the system had promise, because it eventually would lead to the MAS-49 rifle using the same gas system. For the sake of argument the French retain the 8mm Lebel for the Hotchkiss machine gun, but use the 6mmx60mm round for infantry rifles and automatic rifles. What sort of impact would that have on the fighting in 1914 and the response of other nations leading up to WW1?
Note that having such a weapon system would give the French a huge firepower advantage in infantry combat relative to nations with bolt action rifles and only heavy MGs, while also butterflying the Chauchat.
OK, OK, tell me this doesn't look like a "leggo" production...
 
How many men will be able to carry this weapon along with there other equipment it dose weigh 9.7 kg or 21.4lbs .
 

Deleted member 1487

How many men will be able to carry this weapon along with there other equipment it dose weigh 9.7 kg or 21.4lbs .
As much as a BAR and about as much as the Chauchat. Lighter than the Lewis Gun by a large margin.
 
French politics were planning a Lebel replacement for 1909, if this gun is ready it would give them 5 years of production
The MAS36 had a production rate of 250 000 for three years (I took the MAS36 because it was a ''second generation gun'', if anyone have better comparison for production rate feel free to correct me)
It give around 500 000 guns for WW1.
If we handwave politics and imagine that the inventor have contact and the gun production start in 1905, it give them 9 years and with MAS36 production rate: 750 000.

It would be enough for the professional army and let the reserve/non-battle line with the Lebel. This would probably reinforce the three-years law and push France to focus on its professional soldiers, especially if concern about the rate of fire and wasted bullet arise.

It'd also leave them with no stockpile of replacement weapos to handle the inevitable damage/loses to infantry weapons during a rough campaigning, and limited access and ability to produce parts for repair. Lose of standardization within units in the event of a war lasting over a few months would have been inevitable, and create an additional logistical headache for supplying units as a result.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
I've always wondered why it took so long for select-fire rifles firing an intermediate cartridge to become standard issue. The technology to create something like the STG-44 or AK-47 existed since the late 1890s. Was it just a lack of imagination or a stubborn belief that big bullets were always better?
 
I've always wondered why it took so long for select-fire rifles firing an intermediate cartridge to become standard issue. The technology to create something like the STG-44 or AK-47 existed since the late 1890s. Was it just a lack of imagination or a stubborn belief that big bullets were always better?
In the mind of some military: "you need to be able to stop a charging horse at 300m in one shot". So no smaller cartridge.
To have the idea is different than having the abilities. A M113 could have been build in WWII, but why carrying the infantry at tank speed, when you can make infantry tank who go at the speed of infantry?
 
I wonder if they could trim some weight down (starting by removing that atrocious bipod), the M14 was weighting half of the ENT B1
 
God dammit the French don't get nearly enough credit for firearms development do they?

Assuming it can overcome the conservative mindset of the day (they still had magazine cutoff and volley sights)

Yeah lets shorten it to 1000 mm or less - remove bipod try to shave it down to 5 kgs or less

Perhaps make it semi auto only?

10 round semi detachable box magazine - can it be strip clip fed like bolt action rifles of the day?

Get the British to perfect it and then the Americans to build it

I say this as the British designed the best Bolt action rifle of the war (Enfield P14) and the US built the .30-06 Eddystone P17 in vast numbers equipping many of the dough boys - and this P17 is considered to be the best Bolt action of WW1 both in function and quality.

Perhaps a much lighter 'carbine' SA version backed up by the Chauchat (which wasn't nearly as bad as people make out - only the defective conversion to 30-06 intended for the AEF had real issues) which was produced in such numbers as to enable about one gun per squad.
 
The Lebel production was 900 000 riffle per year with a generous funding.
The trouble in WW1 was that it was not possible to produce anymore lebel, ok maybe it was a good so the production could focus on the Berthier

With your proposal I think we can go for a production start in 1905 (5 years for trial, fixing bugs and other) then a 500 000 per year production rate for infantry then a short version to be produced for mounted troops and other. The advantage is that during the war the gun will still be in production with all the tooling operational

As for the machine gun remeber than the main MG of france was the St Etienne so yes keep the 8mm
 

Deleted member 1487

God dammit the French don't get nearly enough credit for firearms development do they?
Well...they didn't put their great ideas into production at the time they were necessary. The OP rifle system was replaced with a high powered 7mm weapon system that was also then not put into production in 1914:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meunier_rifle

The French basically abandoned the above development for not being long range enough.

Assuming it can overcome the conservative mindset of the day (they still had magazine cutoff and volley sights)

Yeah lets shorten it to 1000 mm or less - remove bipod try to shave it down to 5 kgs or less

Perhaps make it semi auto only?

10 round semi detachable box magazine - can it be strip clip fed like bolt action rifles of the day?
There was already a semi-auto rifle version; the above that was over 9kg was the autorifle version for a lighter weight automatic weapon for platoons.

Get the British to perfect it and then the Americans to build it

I say this as the British designed the best Bolt action rifle of the war (Enfield P14) and the US built the .30-06 Eddystone P17 in vast numbers equipping many of the dough boys - and this P17 is considered to be the best Bolt action of WW1 both in function and quality.

Perhaps a much lighter 'carbine' SA version backed up by the Chauchat (which wasn't nearly as bad as people make out - only the defective conversion to 30-06 intended for the AEF had real issues) which was produced in such numbers as to enable about one gun per squad.
Neither ever made French weapons; the French made weapons for the Americans.

The Chauchat in original Lebel had a ton of problems as well, in part because of the open magazine which in trench warfare let in all the dirt and mud.
 
Well...they didn't put their great ideas into production at the time they were necessary. The OP rifle system was replaced with a high powered 7mm weapon system that was also then not put into production in 1914:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meunier_rifle

The French basically abandoned the above development for not being long range enough.


There was already a semi-auto rifle version; the above that was over 9kg was the autorifle version for a lighter weight automatic weapon for platoons.


Neither ever made French weapons; the French made weapons for the Americans.

The Chauchat in original Lebel had a ton of problems as well, in part because of the open magazine which in trench warfare let in all the dirt and mud.

Well if the British can why can't the French?
 
Top