PC: Assault rifles in World War I?


During World War I in 1916, the Russian Army manufactured and used what is perceived to be the first assault rifle in the world, the Federov Avtomat. It saw action on the Romanian front and then was used during the Russian Civil War and then in the 1940 Winter War.

Since the Russians were able to create assault rifles before World War I (or at least, the assault rifle's ancestor), how plausible is it that the rest of the combatants could've been able to create assault rifles of their own? Were there any designs for assault rifles from before World War I outside of Russia?
 
Wouldn't the countries run into the problem of shipping enough ammunition to the front?

Rifle ammunition is minuscule in weight compared to artillery munitions.

And I would add that most soldiers when rotating through the front lines would be unlikely to fire their weapons

Most ammunition carried to the very front lines would be for the units machine guns and 'stokes' mortars etc (other indirect fire weapons are available) as they would be the units principle weapons.

Artillery units would be closer to the MSR
 
Rifle ammunition is minuscule in weight compared to artillery munitions.
Remember that twenty years later the only country that equipped their armies with even semi-automatic rifles was half the planet's industrial power. Assault rifles would take a lot of ammunition, and having to ship it all to the front would make both the logistical strain of the trenches worse, but also mean that more rifle ammunition would have to be made and the supplies going into that have to come from somewhere.
 
Remember that twenty years later the only country that equipped their armies with even semi-automatic rifles was half the planet's industrial power. Assault rifles would take a lot of ammunition, and having to ship it all to the front would make both the logistical strain of the trenches worse, but also mean that more rifle ammunition would have to be made and the supplies going into that have to come from somewhere.

I never bought this argument - the majority of the ammo usage 'in the field' would still be for the units Machine guns and support weapons

90% or more of shot fired through this analogous assault rifle would like the bolt action rifles of the day likely be fired during training

The major powers were producing millions and millions of rounds every week during WW2 and for that matter WW1

On SLRs The USA, Russia, Germany and even France (MAS 40) were in 1940 on the verge of issuing SLRs to their troops

Russia had equipped 1 million men with SVT40s by June 1941 and would have continued to mass produce them had not the need to build the simpler to build Mosin Nagant rifles which could be built in much greater numbers to replace losses incurred during Barbarossa (Indeed the Mosin replaced its replacement!)

The USA went to war with the M1903 Springfield and it was not until 1943 that production of the M1 garand and the M1 Carbine (which IMO was the best individual firearm of WW2) began to equip all front line units (Chemical Mortar and Engineer units @ Torch were still armed with the Springfield!). The defenders of the Philippines and the Marines on Guadalcanal fought using the old rifles (it was the reinforcing US Army divisions that first used the Garand in combat - the Marines re-equipped when they went to Australia).

If there was an issue with supplying enough bullets for Assault rifles then it was not to do with the Assault rifles it would be an issue impacting logistics that would be larger than Assault rifles over Bolt Action Rifles
 
If there was an issue with supplying enough bullets for Assault rifles then it was not to do with the Assault rifles it would be an issue impacting logistics that would be larger than Assault rifles over Bolt Action Rifles
Which I brought up.
 
Remember that twenty years later the only country that equipped their armies with even semi-automatic rifles was half the planet's industrial power. Assault rifles would take a lot of ammunition, and having to ship it all to the front would make both the logistical strain of the trenches worse, but also mean that more rifle ammunition would have to be made and the supplies going into that have to come from somewhere.
Compared to human food, animal forage, potable water, machine gun and artillery ammunition the weight of small arms ammunition is tiny. Typically, even in heavy fighting, ammunition was one-sixth of the weight of the divisional supply train (based on Maude's figures for the MEF).
The standard BEF 'divisional pack' in France was twenty rail wagons daily. Of these:
  • two were bread
  • one meat
  • two other 'groceries'
  • four forage
  • five oats
  • one petrol
  • one coal/coke/wood
  • one mail
  • one ordnance
  • one mechanical transport and other spares
  • one miscellaneous goods including clothing, boots, medical supplies, toiletries, sanitary supplies
That ordnance was supplies for all weapons; rifle, LMG, MMG, Stokes (a new addition in 1916), field artillery and howitzers.
 
Compared to human food, animal forage, potable water, machine gun and artillery ammunition the weight of small arms ammunition is tiny. Typically, even in heavy fighting, ammunition was one-sixth of the weight of the divisional supply train (based on Maude's figures for the MEF).
The standard BEF 'divisional pack' in France was twenty rail wagons daily. Of these:
  • two were bread
  • one meat
  • two other 'groceries'
  • four forage
  • five oats
  • one petrol
  • one coal/coke/wood
  • one mail
  • one ordnance
  • one mechanical transport and other spares
  • one miscellaneous goods including clothing, boots, medical supplies, toiletries, sanitary supplies
That ordnance was supplies for all weapons; rifle, LMG, MMG, Stokes (a new addition in 1916), field artillery and howitzers.

That there! What you said.
 
Entirely plausible, and had the war continued past 1918 I think we'd have seen select-fire rifles being issued on a much wider basis. Germany was ahead of the curve with the MP18, MG08/15 and Bergmann MG15 n.A, while the first M1918 BARs were starting to arrive just as the war ended (France was doing well with the Chauchat and RSC M1917 as well as the above-mentioned Ribeyrolles M1918). It wouldn't be unlikely to expect more Winchester Self-Loading carbines or things like the Burton LMR to show up, and of course the Thompson "Annihilator" was nearly ready as well. Remington Model 8s and machine pistols aren't out of the question either, and then there's the Pedersen device...
 
What are the defining features of assault rifles?

I would argue those features are:
Select fire
Detachable magazine
Intermediate power cartridge
Rifle form factor

How likely is it all the major powers can both discover the utility of those features, combine them into a single weapon, and actually get it fielded in time?

It is possible.

I would argue not very likely. There isn't any fundamental technical reason to make it impossible, but you need a major shift in understanding of tactics, training, doctrine, and procurement policy. How do you make that happen?

Also, supply of ammunition isn't such a major issue (though on peacetime budget assumptions and pre-war logistics plans it appeared as if it was). What is a major issue is where does the manpower and brainpower and budget for developing such weapons and developing appropriate tactics come from? What about retooling factories? I would argue that an earlier focus on LMG or GPMG would be a vastly better use of resources. Also earlier focus on grenade launchers and mortars could make a bigger difference sooner, too. While it is a slight exaggeration, the common rifle is nearly a rounding error in its impact on the Great War.

If you really want to totally change war sooner the introduction of reliable portable field radios is the one that absolutely revolutionized warfare in the 20th century.
 

Zen9

Banned

During World War I in 1916, the Russian Army manufactured and used what is perceived to be the first assault rifle in the world, the Federov Avtomat. It saw action on the Romanian front and then was used during the Russian Civil War and then in the 1940 Winter War.

Since the Russians were able to create assault rifles before World War I (or at least, the assault rifle's ancestor), how plausible is it that the rest of the combatants could've been able to create assault rifles of their own? Were there any designs for assault rifles from before World War I outside of Russia?
People had already been experimenting with intermediate ammo for the simple reason it was easier to build a working (and survivable) mechanism for such than full power ammo.
But the problem was no country was willing to fund a major change of this sort when they were more likely to fund even more powerful ammo such .276 Enfield.
 
I actually met a guy in my town who had a 1903 Springfield modified to use the Pederson device. Didn't have the dwvice itself but had one of the rare rifles that were converted to use it and never converted back.

Shame they destroyed the majority post war. Probably would have been very useful in the early bit of the US involvement in ww2. Say at Wake and the Phillipines.
 
I actually met a guy in my town who had a 1903 Springfield modified to use the Pederson device. Didn't have the dwvice itself but had one of the rare rifles that were converted to use it and never converted back.

Shame they destroyed the majority post war. Probably would have been very useful in the early bit of the US involvement in ww2. Say at Wake and the Phillipines.
It was semi-auto device, and cartridge similar to a pistol in power.

That said, handy in the PI where they were making slam fire zip guns to use shotgun shells.

Those guys had few rifles of any kind. Surplus Krags would have been an improvement.
Hell, even 45-70 Springfield leftovers from the Indian Wars would have been useful in the Islands.
 
Entirely plausible, and had the war continued past 1918 I think we'd have seen select-fire rifles being issued on a much wider basis. Germany was ahead of the curve with the MP18, MG08/15 and Bergmann MG15 n.A, while the first M1918 BARs were starting to arrive just as the war ended (France was doing well with the Chauchat and RSC M1917 as well as the above-mentioned Ribeyrolles M1918). It wouldn't be unlikely to expect more Winchester Self-Loading carbines or things like the Burton LMR to show up, and of course the Thompson "Annihilator" was nearly ready as well. Remington Model 8s and machine pistols aren't out of the question either, and then there's the Pedersen device...
Absolutely, everyone had one in prototype or limited production except the USA who had the BAR.
 

Deleted member 1487

People had already been experimenting with intermediate ammo for the simple reason it was easier to build a working (and survivable) mechanism for such than full power ammo.
But the problem was no country was willing to fund a major change of this sort when they were more likely to fund even more powerful ammo such .276 Enfield.
Even Federov wanted a much higher powered 6.5mm round of his design, but was forced to settle for the Arisaka due to the fact the war was on and it was the only thing available and would operate with his design.
 

trurle

Banned
Wouldn't the countries run into the problem of shipping enough ammunition to the front?
In hindsight, ammo supply to assault rifles would not become a problem.
In WWI epoch, the concerns about over-expending infantry ammunition were the one factor curtailing adoption of automatic rifles. Second factor against early automatic/assault rifles adoption was the unreliability of automatic feeds.
 
Top