PC: Assault rifles in World War I?

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.
They've already got intermediate rounds in service in a number of countries. The various 6.5mm rounds. Even Britain is using the 6.5 Arisaka (for training). They just need a simple, cheap, to build reliable SLR that the average squaddie can strip and keep clean in an open sewer, sorry trench.
 
They've already got intermediate rounds in service in a number of countries. The various 6.5mm rounds. Even Britain is using the 6.5 Arisaka (for training). They just need a simple, cheap, to build reliable SLR that the average squaddie can strip and keep clean in an open sewer, sorry trench.
Those are on the heavy size for a true assault rifle. You can use a G3 or FN-FAL in full auto, and a downsized BAR in 6.5 arisaka or 6.35 Carcano would be easier still, but it would still be in the "aim and use single shots, leave the auto to the LMG guys" category.
Plus the supressive fire problem had been delt with the Lewis gun and Trench cleaning can be dealt with granades and pistols (or for the GIs, shotguns)
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
There were a bunch that fit the category, including the WSL ones. Then there was the .30-30, about 15% more powerful than the 7.62x39.

Those are on the heavy size for a true assault rifle. You can use a G3 or FN-FAL in full auto, and a downsized BAR in 6.5 arisaka or 6.35 Carcano would be easier still, but it would still be in the "aim and use single shots, leave the auto to the LMG guys" category.
Plus the supressive fire problem had been delt with the Lewis gun and Trench cleaning can be dealt with granades and pistols (or for the GIs, shotguns)
Something like the 1918 BAR in 6.5 Arisaka with say a 120 grain bullet would be pretty damn controllable in automatic, basically about as powerful as the British .280. An automatic rifle capable of marching fire and relatively sustained fire from a bipod would be extremely useful.
 
There were a bunch that fit the category, including the WSL ones. Then there was the .30-30, about 15% more powerful than the 7.62x39.


Something like the 1918 BAR in 6.5 Arisaka with say a 120 grain bullet would be pretty damn controllable in automatic, basically about as powerful as the British .280. An automatic rifle capable of marching fire and relatively sustained fire from a bipod would be extremely useful.
Had the decision been made in time that could have been the BAR, and would be more useful than the OTL one (that lacked a bipod) but I expect the US Army would have decided that they wanted it in 30.06 rather than adopt the 6.5. If you retain a relatively heavy barrel you also improve the sustained fire capability. Frankly I think there would no problem also going for 6.5 rifles by having US built Arisakas rather than P17s It could all fit in a "US Army adopts the 6,5 Arisaka round in 1917" POD.
But the US rifle range lobby was even stronger than the Brotish one IIRC and they would be going WTF all over the "litle cartridge"
 

Deleted member 1487

Had the decision been made in time that could have been the BAR, and would be more useful than the OTL one (that lacked a bipod) but I expect the US Army would have decided that they wanted it in 30.06 rather than adopt the 6.5. If you retain a relatively heavy barrel you also improve the sustained fire capability. Frankly I think there would no problem also going for 6.5 rifles by having US built Arisakas rather than P17s It could all fit in a "US Army adopts the 6,5 Arisaka round in 1917" POD.
But the US rifle range lobby was even stronger than the Brotish one IIRC and they would be going WTF all over the "litle cartridge"
Huh, a 125 grain 6.5mm (bullet tested by the US in the 1920s in the Pig Board test) has a better sectional density than the 150 grain WW1 .30-06 bullet. At 125 grains despite being slower at the muzzle, probably only a bit more than 800m/s vs 820m/s for the early .30-06, with better sectional density and form factor, it should have at least comparable range and better energy retention, though to be fair that is from a longer barrel for the Japanese rifle than the Springfield.
 
POD. British Army adopts 6.5 Arisaka round as its future rifle round in 1910 and develops the P13 (here known as the P11) rifle for it begin to issue it late 1913. Production of modified SMLE's had continued as a stop gap.
1915 massive orders for the new rifle are placed in the US to meet demand. Also massive orders for 6.5mm ammunition placed outstripping 30-06 production.
1917 rather than interrupt production and retool US reluctantly accepts P13 rifle in 6.5 for the American expeditionary Force.
1918 John Browning designs the BAR in 6.5mm.

Congress critters scream bloody murder about Murican boys equipped with underpowered rounds designed for "Midget Jap Weaklings" in the typical attitude of the day souring US Japanese relations.

1919 With the war over all 6.5mm weapons are placed in reserve and the US Army returns to using 30-06

1936 or so Stocks of 6.5mm weapons and ammunition sent to the Philippines to equip the forming Philippine Armed forces. Poor storage means these supplies have dubious reliability.
 
Last edited:
Congress critters scream bloody murder about Murican boys equipped with underpowered rounds designed for "Midget Jap Weaklings" in the typical attitude of the day souring US Japanese relations.
So 6.5mmX50 Arisaka, vs the respected/popular 1915 Savage .250-3000 that is basically a 6.35mmX49 mm cartridge.

The 250 Savage was popular till well after WWII, where it started to lose ground to .257 Roberts(6.5mmX57mm), and .243 Winchester(6.2mmX52mm) in the '50s
 
I'm no fire arms expert. Those rounds weren't invented by orientals and this would be in 1918 when such things mattered,
 

Deleted member 1487

POD. British Army adopts 6.5 Arisaka round as its future rifle round in 1910 and develops the P13 (here known as the P11) rifle for it begin to issue it late 1913. Production of modified SMLE's had continued as a stop gap.
1915 massive orders for the new rifle are placed in the US to meet demand. Also massive orders for 6.5mm ammunition placed outstripping 30-06 production.
1917 rather than interrupt production and retool US reluctantly accepts P13 rifle in 6.5 for the American expeditionary Force.
1918 John Browning designs the BAR in 6.5mm.

Congress critters scream bloody murder about Murican boys equipped with underpowered rounds designed for "Midget Jap Weaklings" in the typical attitude of the day souring US Japanese relations.
I don't see how they would given that they were working on the .276 Enfield. At 'best' they could adopt the 7mm Mauser, the inspiration for the .276 Enfield. 6.5mm Arisaka was against all conventional wisdom of the time due to combat experience to that point. Say they do that early enough, say 1910 as you suggestion, but honestly earlier would be better and since 7mm Mauser had been around since the late 19th century it could have been adopted several years earlier. There is no reason it couldn't have had a ~140 grain bullet like the Spanish 7mm Mauser spitzer adopted in 1913, which would have make it very flat firing, longer range, and considerably milder recoiling than 174 grain (despite having an aluminum or paper filled tip) flat base .303 bullet of WW1.

Though not as mild recoiling as the Arisaka round and with a hotter loading, it doesn't need as long of a barrel to reach peak performance and would have been probably quite controllable in the 1918 BAR, though even with a heavier barrel heat build up will be an issue, just not as much of one as the .30-06 model. Even better the base diameter is the same as the .30-06, so conversion is very easy.
Per the below table 7mm Mauser with 140 grain bullet has only 2/3rds the free recoil energy of the .30-06 Springfield.
https://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

That said Browning wouldn't make it in 7mm Mauser, it was only for US force, they didn't share with the Brits.

Now the Lewis Gun in 7mm Mauser is very doable and with a lighter powder load it won't heat up as quickly. Plus if Lewis and/or the Brits get their act together early and think up the designation they could have made the Lewis Assault Phase Rifle in 7mm Mauser:
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2192

A weapon lighter and lower recoiling than the OTL BAR even though it used the same caliber:
xt7HZgJ.jpg


Doesn't seem that much different from the Lewis Gun without the barrel shroud, just with the magazine below rather than on top:
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/64/1591/savage-arms-corporation-lewis-machine-gun-3006
download.png


Seems like if you change the meaning of 'assault rifle' the Lewis assault phase rifle would be the WW1 assault rifle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see how they would given that they were working on the .276 Enfield. At 'best' they could adopt the 7mm Mauser, the inspiration for the .276 Enfield.
I know. It's not something they would have done. It is however something they could have done, perhaps reports from the Russo Japanese War cause them to think again about effective combat ranges.
 

Deleted member 1487

I know. It's not something they would have done. It is however something they could have done, perhaps reports from the Russo Japanese War cause them to think again about effective combat ranges.
Considering all the Europeans ignored the lessons of that war, it is unlikely. Plus I'm not sure that that war actually demonstrated combat ranges were shorter than previous wars as mass infantry charges were still a thing, which made volley rifle fire a long range viable, as in all the battles of 1914. Probably the biggest ignored lesson of the R-J War was the need for LMGs ASAP. The French had a bunch of viable designs before 1910 and waited until they could develop a 7mm magnum round and a gun around it before adopting anything...which in the end prevented them from fielding a decent SLR and auto rifle.
 
I don't see how they would given that they were working on the .276 Enfield. At 'best' they could adopt the 7mm Mauser, the inspiration for the .276 Enfield. 6.5mm Arisaka was against all conventional wisdom of the time due to combat experience to that point. Say they do that early enough, say 1910 as you suggestion, but honestly earlier would be better and since 7mm Mauser had been around since the late 19th century it could have been adopted several years earlier. There is no reason it couldn't have had a ~140 grain bullet like the Spanish 7mm Mauser spitzer adopted in 1913, which would have make it very flat firing, longer range, and considerably milder recoiling than 174 grain (despite having an aluminum or paper filled tip) flat base .303 bullet of WW1.

Though not as mild recoiling as the Arisaka round and with a hotter loading, it doesn't need as long of a barrel to reach peak performance and would have been probably quite controllable in the 1918 BAR, though even with a heavier barrel heat build up will be an issue, just not as much of one as the .30-06 model. Even better the base diameter is the same as the .30-06, so conversion is very easy.
Per the below table 7mm Mauser with 140 grain bullet has only 2/3rds the free recoil energy of the .30-06 Springfield.
https://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

That said Browning wouldn't make it in 7mm Mauser, it was only for US force, they didn't share with the Brits.

Now the Lewis Gun in 7mm Mauser is very doable and with a lighter powder load it won't heat up as quickly. Plus if Lewis and/or the Brits get their act together early and think up the designation they could have made the Lewis Assault Phase Rifle in 7mm Mauser:
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2192

A weapon lighter and lower recoiling than the OTL BAR even though it used the same caliber:
xt7HZgJ.jpg


Doesn't seem that much different from the Lewis Gun without the barrel shroud, just with the magazine below rather than on top:
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/64/1591/savage-arms-corporation-lewis-machine-gun-3006
View attachment 470191

Seems like if you change the meaning of 'assault rifle' the Lewis assault phase rifle would be the WW1 assault rifle.
An assault rufle would be issued to every rifleman. What you're suggesting sounds like a squad issued weapon. A WW1 SAW
 
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.
Typically the maximum distance between trench lines was less than three hundred metres, and usually far less, quite within the useful range of intermediate cartridges.
 
SMGs are simpler to make, they just need a simple blowback system rather than a gas system.
You can convert most semi-automatic pistols into crude (and unreliable) machine pistols easily. This was done in WW1, for example the Steyr M1912/16 (limited production) and Mauser C96 (experimental), providing the inspiration for a better weapon.
It could have easily been done on a larger scale and with other weapons. Colt conversions (the 'Lebman special')were popular in in the US underworld in the 1920s.
 
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.
Both already existed. For example the semi-automatic Winchester Model 07 in .351 Winchester (8.9x35mmR) was used by French forces who ordered a modified version (the Model 17) a selective fire version using extended 15rd magazines specifically for trench raiders.
About 2,500 were obtained din 1918.
 
Those are on the heavy size for a true assault rifle. You can use a G3 or FN-FAL in full auto, and a downsized BAR in 6.5 arisaka or 6.35 Carcano would be easier still, but it would still be in the "aim and use single shots, leave the auto to the LMG guys" category.
Plus the supressive fire problem had been delt with the Lewis gun and Trench cleaning can be dealt with granades and pistols (or for the GIs, shotguns)
The selective fire M1917 Remington weighed 3.6 kilogrammes, comparable to most AK models and lighter than many. The round weight was similar.
 

Deleted member 1487

An assault rufle would be issued to every rifleman. What you're suggesting sounds like a squad issued weapon. A WW1 SAW
Sure, but the doctrinal need for it wasn't perceived and the cost of such a weapon would be prohibitive at the time due to how much more complex a weapon that would be than a bolt action rifle in the area before stamped metal parts. An auto-rifle/'assault' rifle would be about it for the time. As mentioned the Winchester SL weapons were about as close as you'd get in WW1 and even then there were only several thousand around, along with several other full powered SLRs, though that required access to the US economy and willingness to spend themselves into bankruptcy to finance the purchasing.
 
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.'
.

And so consistently trotted out that one might even think there is truth to it.

The issue from the loggies is something like this. Unless you use the rof of the new weapon, not much point to it. If the new use trebles the rof then thats 3+ times as many ammo wagons we need. The + because the horses need fodder and the single most bulky item carried is fodder. In 1866 a Prussian inf Bn had 20 horses and 4 wagons/carts. In 1914 48 horses, 15 wagons carts.

Plus 2 wagons per MG to carry the ammo so introducing automatic weapons and using them is massive logistics drain.

Now ofc whenever someone votes to reequip with new faster firing weapons they do not also vote for more horses and carts and fodder so in fact the unit will run out of ammunition, or have to stop for a couple of days to resupply. Which is one of the issues for the Austrians in 1914 ( that and the 20 wagons per bn. for officers baggage.)

Because you have to reup frequently the pace of operations slows to allow for resupply and the rate of mobilisation slows because of all the carts on the trains instead of combat troops.

And if your operational model is based on swift movement ( and all of them are in 1914) and the actual firepower is from the artillery slowing the rate of advance and speed of mobilisation for a marginal increase in tactical utility is not necessarily a good trade off.

Have a static war, or a much improved logs system the trade off changes.
 
And so consistently trotted out that one might even think there is truth to it.

The issue from the loggies is something like this. Unless you use the rof of the new weapon, not much point to it. If the new use trebles the rof then thats 3+ times as many ammo wagons we need. The + because the horses need fodder and the single most bulky item carried is fodder. In 1866 a Prussian inf Bn had 20 horses and 4 wagons/carts. In 1914 48 horses, 15 wagons carts. ...

The reality is you very seldom expend your at hand load of ammunition. At the company, battalion, or brigade level high volume fires usually last only a few minutes. Sometimes sustained fire fights do run a battalion out of small arms ammo, but its rare, & trying to argue military matters from the exception gets you swiftly lost in the weeds. A few years ago I went thru the history of the Lighting Brigade of the Union Army 1862-65. Tho armed with magazine fed rapid fire rifles there were no examples of them running out of ammunition. If anyone knows of such a incident with them I'd very much like to know the details.

... and the actual firepower is from the artillery ...s.

& its the artillery ammunition & supply that is the reality of ammo supply. That does seriously affect tactics, operations, and the battle. Running out of cannon ammo is a severe problem. It happens regularly & the threat of silent cannon is a major consideration in all battle planning. I dunno, anyone seen a argument against faster firing artilllery due to ammo supply taken seriously?
 
The reality is you very seldom expend your at hand load of ammunition. At the company, battalion, or brigade level high volume fires usually last only a few minutes. Sometimes sustained fire fights do run a battalion out of small arms ammo, but its rare, & trying to argue military matters from the exception gets you swiftly lost in the weeds. A few years ago I went thru the history of the Lighting Brigade of the Union Army 1862-65. Tho armed with magazine fed rapid fire rifles there were no examples of them running out of ammunition. If anyone knows of such a incident with them I'd very much like to know the details.


But that's not the issue. Once you have an organisation set up to deal with the ammo consumption its not an issue and Wilder did have an organisation designed to cope with his needs. The argument comes up from usually comes from quartermasters who are pointing out that increasing ammunition consumption without increasing the supply train will make it an issue.

In the specific case of WW1 introducing automatic weapons ( 13 mg for the Germans ) increases the Battalion supply train by around 30% purely because of the MG ammunition. That's an understatement because it also increases the size of the fodder and horse requirement.

And there are hard caps on the ability to do that and maintain the overall number of combat troops and speed of deployment, you cant keep the horses parked in a garage somewhere they have to be requisitioned fed and so forth all the time. As it was the german forces were reporting shortages of ammunition in 1914 though not specifically of small arms ammo. So the question for them would be whether the additional carrying capacity if it could be found is directed to more artillery ammo, or more divisions.

Don't forget their experience is that a rapidly moving and fast mobilising army with superior artillery could beat an army with MG and small arms that out range you by 2-300% with a 2-300% higher rate of fire. They did just that in 1870 because their superior mobility allowed them to concentrate a superior local force.

The British and the French were far more interested and likely to develop an automatic rifle, and had fewer time and distance constraints, they were looking at semi auto pre war and put the Lewis and Chauchat into mass production as soon as possible. The Germans never did.

I dunno, anyone seen a argument against faster firing artilllery due to ammo supply taken seriously?

Specifically no, but the British moved from a 4rpm normal rate of fire on the 18lb to 3 rpm normal rate on the 25lb ( its 20rpm down to 8 rpm for intense fire). That's not specifically an ROF argument, but it acceptance that the ideal gun and round are not only built on rof.

The argument is that the battle can't happen in the first place because of insufficient ammo. Of it is does happen and you are out of ammo, you generally lose.
 
Top