French SLR in 1914/1939.

By the start of the First World War, the French military establishment had been experimenting for some time with implementing semiautomatic rifles into line regiments. By 1913 they had decided on the Meunier A6, a long recoil operated rifle to replace the Lebel then in service, however extensive delays occurred due to indecision on ammunition selection, with the eventual choice being for a rimless 7.56x95 round.

Then, the war began, and France had to go to war with the rifles and ammunition already in service.

Two years later, the French adopted what would become the M1917 RSC, a semiautomatic service rifle more cheaply and easily built than the Meunier due to its being built largely of existing Lebel components. It was gas-operated and loaded standard 8mm Lebel rounds in a five-round en bloc clip. French soldiers found it too heavy, too long, and too high-maintenance.

A replacement, the M1918 RSC, was adopted for service in 1918, with the intent that it should eventually be used to replace all other rifles then in service.

In other words, the Ministère des Armées was planning to go fully semiautomatic before 1920.

Then, the war ended, and production of the M1918 RSC was halted with just a few thousand finished. Some of these saw service in the Rif War of the 1920s, where French soldiers issued the rifles gave them good reviews, but they never took their originally intended place as the main service rifle of the Armée de terre.

My scenario is this. Suppose the decision on ammunition for the Meunier did not take so long, and so when the war eventually kicked off it was already in full production. Early in the war many French units would have still had their Lebels, but with the Ministère shipping Meuniers to the lines as quickly as possible. It was a generally well-received rifle, and the ammunition was seen as excellent.

What impact does this have on WWI, and later on WWII?

Alternatively, you could postulate the impact on WWII of the M1918 RSC being pushed into general service between the wars.
 
While I believe you'd need to delay WW1 to give enough time for France to statt mass producing sincd I never liked the idea of technology appearing earlier than OTL, as it is dependent on so many factors.

However, regardless, I don't believe self-loaders in 1914 would affect the war significantly, if at all. Military doctrine was really backwards and only slowly adjusting to the introduction of smokeless, magazine, bolt-action rifles let alone machine guns and the upcoming semi-automatic rifles.

In the end, new military technology doesn't win wars unless it's paired with proper doctries. For example, back in 1866, the Dreyse rifle is significant in the Prussian victory over Austria, but its advantages wouldn't have mattered if the Prussians had stuck to older doctrine. Same thing in 1914: Additional firepower is good on paper, but since military doctrines of the time didn't take into account the increased accuracy of rifles, the importance of concealement on a large scale thanks to smokeless powdee, and rapid-fire of magazine rifles and machine guns, it would only be wasted until doctrines adapted. When it does, however, it might be able to raise the offensive capabilities of the Poilu, but it all depends how the rifle does in trench warfare. Maybe the French can shorten it and give it a larger magazine somehow, if possible, then it would be a great rifle in the trenches.

In 1940, however, getting the MAS-40 on time would have a bigger impact since thw French, at that point, had experience with semi-automatic rifles and its application on the battlefield. Plus, the French had been working on a self-loader since the 20s and could've gotten a rifle ready around the same time the Americans had the M1 ready with proper funding. However, again, this doesn't solve the other deficiencies the French army had in 1940 (sounds familiar?).

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that brand new technology is useless if the doctrines haven't caught up. Additional firepower won't matter if the Army has other, more crippling problems.
 
The man-carried wepon has a really small role for the outcome of ww1, let alone of ww2 - it was very much a tactical wepon. For a win in the ww2, once we remove the geo-political and strategic considerations (like does the said country has money, manpower, industrial base to wage a major war, access to foreign trade and/or help, with whom to enter alliance or whom to avoid), aircraft, artillery ('classic', AT, AA), tanks, trucks were of major importance. Along with ships for the UK, USA and Japan.
Rifles, SMGs, even MGs do matter to the people at the pointy end, but can't win or loose the Polish campaign, campaigns of 1940, BoB, Op Barbarossa, can't win airspace over Germany for either side, let alone Pacific war (here even the tanks were of tertiary importance).
 
Last edited:
I think we can all agree that merely giving the French an SLR isn't going to stop WWI in its tracks. Win them a few more battles? Likely. Increase total German casualties? Definitely. Win the war by 1915? Nope.

While I believe you'd need to delay WW1 to give enough time for France to start mass producing...

Design work on the Meunier began in the 1890s, and by I believe 1908 IOTL there was a finished, functional version, the A5, which was chambered in an excellent 6.61mm bullet capable of 3,300 F/ps muzzle velocity, and had been tweaked over previous models in order to make it very functional with an eye to possible military service.

Etienne Meunier, the gunsmith responsible for the project, only built on this to meet the more specific requirements of a French gov't contract issued in 1909, with the result being the A6. One main difference was contract insistence on a 7mm bullet. The exact details of the round design would be changed many, many times, resulting in a confusing litany of variants.

If I wanted to work a butterfly here, it would simply be that the Ministère des Armées is sufficiently impressed by the A5 to go with it more or less as it is. Production could likely commence as early as late 1909, so by 1914 it is not inconceivable for there to be large numbers of troops in Metropolitan France with the new rifle.

That said, I still agree they're not winning the war simply due to an SLR.
 
Top