PC: Assault rifles in World War I?

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

Plus all those early Russian self loaders had issues with not being as robust or reliable in the field as a Mosin, it actually made sense to produce and issue a bolt action as it was ultimately more reliable and if they wanted infantry fire power they had all those handy SMG's on issue. The Germans fielded a lot of G43 and STG44 rifles even though the country was literally being burnt to the ground around their ears.
 
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 dont think the Pederson would have been very useful. You have effectively converted a 9 pound .30-06 rifle into an 11 pound awkwardly shaped not very reliable .32ACP popgun.
 
The end result more soldiers die faster, hopefully help love will get perforated.
Increased infantry casualties what have a serious effect on the course of the war.
The whole over-the-top thing would become instantly suicidal. You might even see a white piece in 1916 or 1917 has both sides run out of infantry and face backlash at home when the Army starts taking 15 and 16 year old boys.
 

Deleted member 1487

The end result more soldiers die faster, hopefully help love will get perforated.
Increased infantry casualties what have a serious effect on the course of the war.
The whole over-the-top thing would become instantly suicidal. You might even see a white piece in 1916 or 1917 has both sides run out of infantry and face backlash at home when the Army starts taking 15 and 16 year old boys.
Assault rifles haven't made infantry attacks impossible any more than artillery did (though submunition MLRS's...). Attackers in WW1 after 1914 generally had enormous artillery support and it was only deeper in the enemy multilayered defenses were they brought to a halt; assault rifles help make up for the lack of sustained fire LMGs though for the attacker, though that is somewhat balanced by the defenders having that firepower too though they'd likely be more effective once communications broke down during the advance. Artillery was a wonderful suppressor of defending infantry even in trenches.
 
Assault rifles haven't made infantry attacks impossible any more than artillery did (though submunition MLRS's...). Attackers in WW1 after 1914 generally had enormous artillery support and it was only deeper in the enemy multilayered defenses were they brought to a halt; assault rifles help make up for the lack of sustained fire LMGs though for the attacker, though that is somewhat balanced by the defenders having that firepower too though they'd likely be more effective once communications broke down during the advance. Artillery was a wonderful suppressor of defending infantry even in trenches.
When weaponry outpaces tactics as in the American Civil War there is always an extremely high body count before people learn their lessons. 1914 would have been an even bigger bloodbath.
 

Deleted member 1487

When weaponry outpaces tactics as in the American Civil War there is always an extremely high body count before people learn their lessons. 1914 would have been an even bigger bloodbath.
In 1914 sure, but by 1915 modern tactics were being worked out to deal with the heavy firepower HMGs in fortified positions could dish out, not to mention artillery. Human wave attacks were more the exception than rule after that, but much depended on training and experience. Not sure though that people would take that long to adapt in 1914 as you'd think, they were no more stupid than anyone else, so they'd focus more on fire and maneuver, which was already used in 1914 depending on the units.
Here the PDF of the French 1915 manual (translated into English) on the attack in trench warfare that helped inspire the German stormtrooper tactics:
http://www.stevespages.com/WarVids/AttackInTrenchWar0l.pdf
 
In 1914 sure, but by 1915 modern tactics were being worked out to deal with the heavy firepower HMGs in fortified positions could dish out, not to mention artillery. Human wave attacks were more the exception than rule after that, but much depended on training and experience. Not sure though that people would take that long to adapt in 1914 as you'd think, they were no more stupid than anyone else, so they'd focus more on fire and maneuver, which was already used in 1914 depending on the units.
Here the PDF of the French 1915 manual (translated into English) on the attack in trench warfare that helped inspire the German stormtrooper tactics:
http://www.stevespages.com/WarVids/AttackInTrenchWar0l.pdf
True, but Military tactics are developed by trial and error with a assault rifles those errors would become a lot more expensive.
 
In 1914 weapons had outpaced tactics. No one knew how to combat the combination of repeating rifles, machine guns and quick firing artillery which is why the war of movement quickly degenerated into one of trench lines hundreds of miles long.
 

Kaze

Banned
Thompson Sub-machine Gun could be available if the war goes on to 1919 - early prototypes of the "Tommy Gun" could make it to the field.

But the Germans by that time had the MP 18 ready to go.
 

Deleted member 1487

True, but Military tactics are developed by trial and error with a assault rifles those errors would become a lot more expensive.
Sure, but if they had them pre-war they'd be aware of it and probably train more fire and maneuver tactics given that assault rifles would make such tactics even more effective offensively.

In 1914 weapons had outpaced tactics. No one knew how to combat the combination of repeating rifles, machine guns and quick firing artillery which is why the war of movement quickly degenerated into one of trench lines hundreds of miles long.
The Russo-Japanese war?
Too bad for the Europeans they largely ignored the lessons thanks to racist thinking that circumstances were different for a 'white man's war'. The Russians did pretty well based on their experience against the Austo-Hungarians, but their lack of offensive experience really bit them hard in maneuver war against the Germans.
That said the knowledge of how to fight combined arms was understood and break-ins were no problem, the problem was the breakthrough of a multi-layered trench position with rail reinforcement being more rapid than foot or horse advance, especially once communications broke down in the period before mobile wireless units became available.

I audited a US army history course about WW1 and the captain who taught it emphasized the problem wasn't one of modern weaponry, as that had been available in several wars to that point, but of communications and transportation, as the attacker couldn't maintain reliable communications during the advance before reliable, transportable wireless sets were available en masse and the defender could reinforce faster than the attacker due to communication advantages AND the ability to use rail. Trucks were only just starting to be a viable option in 1918, as was wireless communication, but that was effectively in it's infancy and the problem was not truly solved in WW1. The Central Powers just ran out of men and morale, while the Allies were replenished by the US entry and a new flood of money and material. It took until WW2 for attacker movement and communications to match or exceed that of the defender and allow for decisive breakthroughs.

Thompson Sub-machine Gun could be available if the war goes on to 1919 - early prototypes of the "Tommy Gun" could make it to the field.

But the Germans by that time had the MP 18 ready to go.
As it was the Winchester 1907 was available in 1916 in select fire, magazine fed form. It effectively was an heavy intermediate cartridge assault rifle used for trench clearing and normal ranged combat. That was years before the SMG was available. The only issue was reliability and recoil.
 
There is also the Farquhar-Hill semi-auto rifle with a 19 round drum mag that the British adopted and ordered into production in 1918. The war ended and the order was cancelled. It did see some use with British aviators.
 
I dont think the Pederson would have been very useful. You have effectively converted a 9 pound .30-06 rifle into an 11 pound awkwardly shaped not very reliable .32ACP popgun.

This is the conclusion reached by Othais and Mae over at C&Rsenal. That and the little fact that the Pederson Device hadn't been tested adequately, is overly complicated and is not very reliable.

In addition to the British ordering the Farquar-Hill rifle for service in 1919(cancelled due to reasons), and of course the US BAR, the French were fielding the RSC-17 and -18 semi-automatic rifles in 1918. (See Forgotten Weapons)
 
The defenders would still relly on their HMG for the sustained fire role and the attackers woul still need LMG to provide supressive fire.
In WW1 there was limited fighting in urban areas or in the type of close range actions between two forces on the move where assault rifles make a diference. Once you get to the enemy positions, Granades and SMG would be of more use, and tha's probably why WW1 saw SMG introduced before Assault Rifles.
Overall, the impact on operations would be minor.
 
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.

Or MG ammunition. This old canard has been trotted out as reason for not adopting magazine fed rifles in the early of mid 19th. ' The line companies will run out of ammo immediately, disarming them selves.'

My preferred PoD is a much earlier interest in Mondragons prototypes of the 1880s. The core principles were there. The design just needed funds and expertise to refine it into a viable combat weapon.
 

Deleted member 1487

The defenders would still relly on their HMG for the sustained fire role and the attackers woul still need LMG to provide supressive fire.
In WW1 there was limited fighting in urban areas or in the type of close range actions between two forces on the move where assault rifles make a diference. Once you get to the enemy positions, Granades and SMG would be of more use, and tha's probably why WW1 saw SMG introduced before Assault Rifles.
Overall, the impact on operations would be minor.
SMGs are simpler to make, they just need a simple blowback system rather than a gas system.
 
SMGs are simpler to make, they just need a simple blowback system rather than a gas system.
The original SMG were fairly heavy complex designs. The Vilar Perosa started out as a twin barrell "wonder bra" that was used with an harness and the MP-18 was a very expensive looking fairly heavy piece. The principle is simple, but the early SMG construction wasn't
 

Deleted member 1487

The original SMG were fairly heavy complex designs. The Vilar Perdosa started out as a twin barrell "wonder bra" that was used with an harness and the MP-18 was a very expensive looking fairly heavy piece. The principle is simple, but the early SMG construction wasn't
The VP was an aircraft gun first before being adapted later for ground use and was a quite simple design overall. The Mp18 design is also simple, the construction wasn't, but that isn't an issue of the design, but of production choices, I assume to ensure reliability.
 
SMGs are simpler to make, they just need a simple blowback system rather than a gas system.
The main problem with an assault rifle for WW1 would be designing a rifle around an intermediate cartridge and the introducing that cartridge into service.
 
The VP was an aircraft gun first before being adapted later for ground use and was a quite simple design overall. The Mp18 design is also simple, the construction wasn't, but that isn't an issue of the design, but of production choices, I assume to ensure reliability.
They built things to last. I've handled a MP-18 (sadly hadn't the chance to fire it) and that thing is built to last for ever. Which for a wartime design is wasteful. The heavy barrel might have helped if they used for (limited) sustained fire.
Building an assault rifle would be easy by dowsizing a proven MG action for an intermediate cartridge. You could have built a lighter BAR.
 
The VP was an aircraft gun first before being adapted later for ground use and was a quite simple design overall. The Mp18 design is also simple, the construction wasn't, but that isn't an issue of the design, but of production choices, I assume to ensure reliability.
The VP action was a simple design, but taking it as it was rather than building a single barrel version was a case of avoiding simplicity when it was starinh right at you.
 
Top