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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Have weapons made in the US
The Brits didn't in WW1, the US sent raw materials or components, not whole weapon systems (for the most part). The French simply wanted it all made at home for whatever reason; the US couldn't then make the weapons in 1917-18, so they sourced them from the French. The Brits didn't provide the US with anything.
 
The Brits didn't in WW1, the US sent raw materials or components, not whole weapon systems (for the most part). The French simply wanted it all made at home for whatever reason; the US couldn't then make the weapons in 1917-18, so they sourced them from the French. The Brits didn't provide the US with anything.

No I mean the British got the US industries to build the 1,250,000 P14 Enfield Rifles while those same 3 factories (Winchester, Remington and Eddystone) then going on to build over 2 million M1917 Enfields in 30-06 to equip the doughboys of the AEF

Soooo what if instead of the P14/M1917 Enfield the USA instead built about 3+ Million French designed SLRs - half for the French army and then half for the AEF
 

Deleted member 1487

No I mean the British got the US industries to build the 1,250,000 P14 Enfield Rifles while those same 3 factories (Winchester, Remington and Eddystone) then going on to build over 2 million M1917 Enfields in 30-06 to equip the doughboys of the AEF

Soooo what if instead of the P14/M1917 Enfield the USA instead built about 3+ Million French designed SLRs - half for the French army and then half for the AEF
Given the French record of not letting anyone else build their weapon designs....I don't think it would be possible without a second POD.
Otherwise they could have made their OTL pre-warSLR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meunier_rifle
Same with their late war SLR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusil_Automatique_Modèle_1917
 
The Brits didn't provide the US with anything.

Apart from Aircraft, Heavy Artillery, Mortars, Machine guns, Tanks, Mines, ammunition, rations and probably a whole lot of other things. US units in British operational areas were sometimes equipped entirely from locally available stocks, US units in French operational areas sometimes wore the Adrian Helmet, Leather bandoliers, Horizon Bleu uniforms carried 8mm weapons and drank Armanac (which was tastier than Lamp Oil but only just). The US didnt get fully into the swing of total war till well into 1918 and relied heavily on Franco/British equipment.
 

Deleted member 1487

Apart from Aircraft, Heavy Artillery, Mortars, Machine guns, Tanks, Mines, ammunition, rations and probably a whole lot of other things. US units in British operational areas were sometimes equipped entirely from locally available stocks, US units in French operational areas sometimes wore the Adrian Helmet, Leather bandoliers, Horizon Bleu uniforms carried 8mm weapons and drank Armanac (which was tastier than Lamp Oil but only just). The US didnt get fully into the swing of total war till well into 1918 and relied heavily on Franco/British equipment.
What US units were equipped by the Brits?
 
Given the French record of not letting anyone else build their weapon designs....I don't think it would be possible without a second POD

Well they did buy some Winchester Model 7

The French government initially ordered 300 Model 1907 rifles in October 1915 from Winchester, soon followed by an order for 2,500 more rifles. Ammunition orders for these rifles exceeded 1.5 million cartridges of .351SL before 1917. Subsequent orders in 1917 and 1918 totaled 2,200 Model 1907 rifles. According to factory records, these rifles were modified for fully automatic fire and fitted with Lee-Navy rifle bayonets. These rifles were designated by the name of Winchester Model 1907/17, they used either a 15-round magazine or 20-round magazine and fired from 600 to 700 rounds per minute.

And about 15,000 Mode4l 94 lever actions, too
 

Deleted member 1487

Well they did buy some Winchester Model 7

The French government initially ordered 300 Model 1907 rifles in October 1915 from Winchester, soon followed by an order for 2,500 more rifles. Ammunition orders for these rifles exceeded 1.5 million cartridges of .351SL before 1917. Subsequent orders in 1917 and 1918 totaled 2,200 Model 1907 rifles. According to factory records, these rifles were modified for fully automatic fire and fitted with Lee-Navy rifle bayonets. These rifles were designated by the name of Winchester Model 1907/17, they used either a 15-round magazine or 20-round magazine and fired from 600 to 700 rounds per minute.

And about 15,000 Mode4l 94 lever actions, too
Sure, but they were American weapons and ammo that were being trialed by the French, not French designs manufactured by the Americans to French spec.
 
Sure, but they were American weapons and ammo that were being trialed by the French, not French designs manufactured by the Americans to French spec.

Smallarms, no, but many shells were made for France, and the larger Arty the US ended up using, were clones of the French gear, like the Canon de 155mm GPF mle.1917
 
I do note that France thought so highly of the ENT B1 that when they wanted a semi automatic rifle in WW1 they decided to develop the RSC 1917 instead.
 

Deleted member 1487

I do note that France thought so highly of the ENT B1 that when they wanted a semi automatic rifle in WW1 they decided to develop the RSC 1917 instead.
IOTL by 1917 they went with a rifle that used the existing 8mm Lebel and most of the standard issue rifle parts for ease of manufacturing.
Their pre-war SLR program was a mess of spec changes and other demands that finally resulted in the entire program being cancelled right before WW1 so as not to disrupt production of existing designs.
 
What US units were equipped by the Brits?

Sorry I dont have unit names but I came across some interesting facts from the British Quartermaster General accounts. The following were issued to the US army in 1917 and 1918. No idea if they were paid for or were loaned or even swapped for items the US had in abundance.

800,000 pairs of boots (B5 type)
400,000 MkI helmets,
150,000 sets of 1908 webbing equipment
500,000 sets of woolen underwear
20,000 pairs of Rubber Trench boots
4,000 gallons of Trench issue Rum
 

Deleted member 1487

Sorry I dont have unit names but I came across some interesting facts from the British Quartermaster General accounts. The following were issued to the US army in 1917 and 1918. No idea if they were paid for or were loaned or even swapped for items the US had in abundance.

800,000 pairs of boots (B5 type)
400,000 MkI helmets,
150,000 sets of 1908 webbing equipment
500,000 sets of woolen underwear
20,000 pairs of Rubber Trench boots
4,000 gallons of Trench issue Rum
More than I thought, thanks for the info. But no weapons?
 
More than I thought, thanks for the info. But no weapons?

I was only looking at Quartermaster lists, weapons would be Ordnance a different department I think. I would think that weapons and equipment was swapped fairly frequently whenever two National units served closely and their was a local shortage (I have seen pictures of Tommies carrying Lebels and Poilus carrying Mills grenades) on the Italian and the Salonika front equipment was swapped more than the Western front probably because supplies were less reliable.
 
The main reasons semi-automatic or automatic rifles were not adopted other than as trials or aircraft weapons were cost, reliability and politics. Cost is especially important as most nation armies had just adopted smokeless cartridges and magazine rifles on a large scale. Conversions of these into automatics were examined, but the costs & reliability issues were even worse. That left new designs, however early examples such as Mexico's Mondragon proved fragile and susceptible to mud and dust. As for reliability, this is all new tech, even the cartridge tech wasn't fully perfected. A semi- or fully- automatic and reliable sporting rifle was doable, mass produced military rifles, capable of surviving combat & soldiers, weren't, not until the late 20s/early 30s when metallurgy caught up. Bolt-action magazine rifles, on the other hand, were more reliable, less complicated, and far cheaper. Industrial capability and politics (especially inter- and intra- service) also come into play.

So the question becomes "Do we build a limited number of an expensive, finicky, but effective weapon or do we build more of the older ones while we work out the kinks and then build the fancy one?"

Forgotten Weapons and C&Rsenal go into pretty good detail into why semi- & fully-automatic rifles never really entered into full service prior to WW1. Hell, even by WW2 only TWO nations had done so: the U.S.A (M1) and the Soviet Union (AVS-36, SVT-38, SVT-40).

To get an automatic rifle into widespread front-line service by WW1, the P.O.D. needs to be a technological one prior to 1900.
 

Deleted member 1487

The main reasons semi-automatic or automatic rifles were not adopted other than as trials or aircraft weapons were cost, reliability and politics. Cost is especially important as most nation armies had just adopted smokeless cartridges and magazine rifles on a large scale. Conversions of these into automatics were examined, but the costs & reliability issues were even worse. That left new designs, however early examples such as Mexico's Mondragon proved fragile and susceptible to mud and dust. As for reliability, this is all new tech, even the cartridge tech wasn't fully perfected. A semi- or fully- automatic and reliable sporting rifle was doable, mass produced military rifles, capable of surviving combat & soldiers, weren't, not until the late 20s/early 30s when metallurgy caught up. Bolt-action magazine rifles, on the other hand, were more reliable, less complicated, and far cheaper. Industrial capability and politics (especially inter- and intra- service) also come into play.

So the question becomes "Do we build a limited number of an expensive, finicky, but effective weapon or do we build more of the older ones while we work out the kinks and then build the fancy one?"

Forgotten Weapons and C&Rsenal go into pretty good detail into why semi- & fully-automatic rifles never really entered into full service prior to WW1. Hell, even by WW2 only TWO nations had done so: the U.S.A (M1) and the Soviet Union (AVS-36, SVT-38, SVT-40).

To get an automatic rifle into widespread front-line service by WW1, the P.O.D. needs to be a technological one prior to 1900.
I did watch that FW video, but I have to disagree about the viability of a WW1 SLR, especially given that multiple automatic rifles using the systems developed pre-WW1 in the French SLR program were produced; the Chauchat used the same system as the Meunier SLR rifle and was close to the weight of the ENT B1 automatic rifle, despite being more complex. SLRs existed pre-WW1 as well, like the Winchester 1905 (and others):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1905
Which BTW actually was used in WW1 by multiple nations.
The only reason the French didn't actually adopt any of their SLR projects pre-WW1 is that their program was a mess of 'overdevelopment', meaning they kept changing specs, calibers, and doctrine, which meant that when they finally were able to settle on a new caliber and SLR it was already 1914 and too late to mass produce it, so they spent a few more years to turn out the FA 1917/1918 using much of the existing Lebel rifle parts and the 8mm Lebel cartridge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusil_Automatique_Modèle_1917
So SLRs were used in WW1 and were successful; they were also viable pre-WW1 too, but for bureaucratic choices. Pre-WW2 the major reason for no major production of SLRs pre-1941 was lack of funding, desire to rearm as quickly as possible, which means focusing on existing designs, and bureaucratic hinderances. There were no technological reasons for the lack of WW2 SLRs in 1939, just choices and funding focus.

For this POD the big issue is simply getting the French Army to make a decision sooner about what it wants and be more accepting of the existing 6mm caliber instead of changing their minds and continuously upping the caliber demands, which created fatal delays in the program. Same thing with settling on the complex long recoil system for their SLR as well. Had they just gone the route they ended up with in 1940 with the MAS-40, the direct impingement recoil system, they could have had their SLR/autorifle weapon system ready in 6mm in 1905.
 
I did watch that FW video, but I have to disagree about the viability of a WW1 SLR, especially given that multiple automatic rifles using the systems developed pre-WW1 in the French SLR program were produced; the Chauchat used the same system as the Meunier SLR rifle and was close to the weight of the ENT B1 automatic rifle, despite being more complex. SLRs existed pre-WW1 as well, like the Winchester 1905 (and others):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1905
Which BTW actually was used in WW1 by multiple nations.
The only reason the French didn't actually adopt any of their SLR projects pre-WW1 is that their program was a mess of 'overdevelopment', meaning they kept changing specs, calibers, and doctrine, which meant that when they finally were able to settle on a new caliber and SLR it was already 1914 and too late to mass produce it, so they spent a few more years to turn out the FA 1917/1918 using much of the existing Lebel rifle parts and the 8mm Lebel cartridge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusil_Automatique_Modèle_1917
So SLRs were used in WW1 and were successful; they were also viable pre-WW1 too, but for bureaucratic choices. Pre-WW2 the major reason for no major production of SLRs pre-1941 was lack of funding, desire to rearm as quickly as possible, which means focusing on existing designs, and bureaucratic hinderances. There were no technological reasons for the lack of WW2 SLRs in 1939, just choices and funding focus.

For this POD the big issue is simply getting the French Army to make a decision sooner about what it wants and be more accepting of the existing 6mm caliber instead of changing their minds and continuously upping the caliber demands, which created fatal delays in the program. Same thing with settling on the complex long recoil system for their SLR as well. Had they just gone the route they ended up with in 1940 with the MAS-40, the direct impingement recoil system, they could have had their SLR/autorifle weapon system ready in 6mm in 1905.

Umm... Most of your arguments are the same ones as I posited: Costs, politics and reliability. I agree that multiple semi-automatic rifle concepts were around prior to WW1. Its just that they were not yet suitable, for a variety of reasons, for front-line service. Even the Winchester Model 1905, as well as the '07 & '10 models, were not used in large numbers by any combatant in a front-line role. Like the handful of other pre-war semi-autos that saw service, they were almost exclusively used in naval service or air combat because there was no mud and/or because they were sporting designs pressed into service. These were then superseded in that role once interrupter gear for machine guns were developed, relegating the semi-autos to rear echelon duties. Note that sporting designs are not always conducive to the demands of military service.

Every major power and many minor ones, Mexico being a prime example, knew that semi- or fully-automatic rifles were the future. The problem was not the availability of designs, it was that the technology, specifically metallurgy, was not up to the challenge of delivering a reliable and affordable military rifle until the late 1920s. All the small parts, springs, operating rods, cartridge cases, etc., keep failing under the stresses of military use. This explains why machine guns, even light machine guns such as the Lewis & Madsen, were so much heavier than rifles. The extra mass of the parts could handle the stress and the design tolerances were not required to be as fine as those required for an automatic rifle. Issues with metallurgy crop up across all industries pre-WW1 with the Titanic being the most glaring example of this. The availability of reliable ammunition also restricted adoption of semi- and fully- automatic rifles in a military context, as most operating systems require ammunition of a consistent quality. Smokeless powders pre-WW1 were still relatively new and wartime production demands resulted in poor quality control for quite some time into the war. This issue still occurs from time to time, with the early M16s falling foul of this when troops were issued ammunition with a different powder load to what the rifle was designed for, and ARs use a direct impingement gas system, similar to the one you advocate for French adoption in 1905.

As for the automatic rifles that entered front-line service during the war, those had the benefit of war-time experience in trench warfare conditions and were driven by a need to increase firepower to break the deadlock. As such, compromises were accepted that would not have been pre-war, including those surrounding metallurgy. The Fusil Automatique Modèle 1917 and BAR are examples of these compromises, with the reliability of the FAM 1917 being a noted concern and the BAR weighing almost, if not quite, as much as a light machine gun. Note that even Britain had adopted the Farquhar-Hill Rifle by 1918 for general service, although the war ended before any significant numbers could be produced, despite the rifle being developed by 1911. Prior to this, it had only served as an aircraft weapon.

I also agree that by the 1930s it is politics and financial consideration that prevented the wider adoption of SLRs. This is because the tech had finally caught up with design. If this can be fixed prior to 1900, along with ammunition quality, then you could indeed have an SLR adopted by a major power earlier than OTL.
 
Top