PC: Assault rifles in World War I?

Given the overall production resources of WW1 one might be better off combining the simple blow back SMGs/grenades with proper LMGs and covered by centralised HMGs. The obsession with a better 'rifle' required the same resources, machining and skilled workers as LMG production did. SMGs can be made elsewhere.

I do realise that this involves using concepts which were not (bar late WW1 trench assault work) general at the time and treating a 'gun' as a tool and not an expression of skilled engineering was heretic but there is no technical reason that bars the idea at the time. The trickiest part of a WW1 'Sten' is the magazine.

The production of thin spring steel sheet and stamping it precisely is the hard bit. Makers of Chauchat magazines were pressed by tin plate toy makers whose dies and presses were incapable of working such hard steel and had to use thin, soft, mild steel. OK for a disposable magazine but too weak for repeated reloading and use.

LMGs were already in existence and freeing up 'rifle' making would allow far more to be made. The saving in weight of an SMG etc allows attacking troops to carry more LMG ammunition to reload the LMG magazines and maintain a resistance to counter attacks for longer until the follow up troops pass through their lines. OTL saw an increasing proportion of troops dedicated to supporting LMGs and an SMG is far handier in close actions than a long rifle.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
The production of thin spring steel sheet and stamping it precisely is the hard bit. Makers of Chauchat magazines were pressed by tin plate toy makers whose dies and presses were incapable of working such hard steel and had to use thin, soft, mild steel. OK for a disposable magazine but too weak for repeated reloading and use.

Yes, the Chauchat had thin, weak magazines. Plus, a couple of the converted civilian weapons were plagued by weak magazines. However, you are generalizing overall. The Villar Perosi of the same era had no problem with magazines. Nor did the Madsen, BAR and various pistols with detachable magazines. Many disposable clips of the period still work after a century and two world wars. What problem with thin sheet spring steel?
 
Yes, the Chauchat had thin, weak magazines. Plus, a couple of the converted civilian weapons were plagued by weak magazines. However, you are generalizing overall. The Villar Perosi of the same era had no problem with magazines. Nor did the Madsen, BAR and various pistols with detachable magazines. Many disposable clips of the period still work after a century and two world wars. What problem with thin sheet spring steel?

C&Rsenal's Anvil Youtube channel explains the issues with Chauchat magazines, both the 8mm Lebel and .30-06 designs.
 
Getting back to the British Farquhar-Hill Rifle, a few minor changes, and one major one, to the system could see it as a viable 1st generation assault rifle during WW1.
1) modify the drum magazine to enable easier reloading and to prevent accidental discharge of the cartridges while doing so, or while inserting/removing the magazine from the rifle would help. Feed lips on the magazine, instead of being integral to the rifle, that sort of thing.
2) built in stripper clip guide on the magazines or a detachable one stored in the butt-stock, in addition to the one built into the reciever.
3) alter the magazine well to take either the modified drum magazine or an improved 20-round "trench" magazine.
4) modify the fire control group to allow both semi- and fully-automatic fire.
 

Zen9

Banned
On 1 it would be better to have a seal-able cover for the magazine that opens on insertion into the gun.
I think they did resolve the loading issue.

An alternative box mag would be preferable and your stripper loading on that.
 
For the Farquhar-Hill rifle just have a detachable magazine that works in the same manner as the Madsden ones.

Top-mounted, offset to the side, held on by a external spring and gravity-fed/assisted? There are issues with the Madsen magazine feed layout in the pre-war and WW1 Madsens. Again, C&Rsenal's Project Lightning, in conjunction with Ian McCollum from Forgotten Weapons has a good series of videos comparing the various light machine guns in service during WW1. One issue with the Madsen that arose was that the magazine was more difficult to insert than it appears. If done incorrectly, it could come loose when fired and/or cause jams. This issue was fixed during the interwar period.
 
The simplest fix for the Farquhar-Hill is to adapt it to take SMLE mags. The 20 round trench mag would be ideal for it.
 
The simplest fix for the Farquhar-Hill is to adapt it to take SMLE mags. The 20 round trench mag would be ideal for it.

I think that it how it would evolve

Basically it would end up with the 10 round 'semi-detachable' Box magazine of the Lee Enfield rifle and the intention to be that the weapon stripper reloaded like the bolt action rifle

Possible it might end up being the case that the 10 round box mag uses the original 'chain' while not inserted (so it stays connected to the weapon as originally intended on the Lee Enfield/Metford) and the Trench mag used only for the Final assault phase

And then ultimately the Trench magazine is issued in enough numbers to replace the old 10 round magazine
 
Top-mounted, offset to the side, held on by a external spring and gravity-fed/assisted? There are issues with the Madsen magazine feed layout in the pre-war and WW1 Madsens. Again, C&Rsenal's Project Lightning, in conjunction with Ian McCollum from Forgotten Weapons has a good series of videos comparing the various light machine guns in service during WW1. One issue with the Madsen that arose was that the magazine was more difficult to insert than it appears. If done incorrectly, it could come loose when fired and/or cause jams. This issue was fixed during the interwar period.

That was a good series "Ian slowly falling in love with the Lewis gun" (which despite being broken was still sooooo much better than the other guns) LOL
 
That was a good series "Ian slowly falling in love with the Lewis gun" (which despite being broken was still sooooo much better than the other guns) LOL

That was the reason the Empire took a look at the others on offer and went "Nope! Mr. Lewis' design suits us just fine, especially with that strap the Canadians came up with".
The same reason the US Marines screamed blue, bloody murder when the US Army took theirs off them and gave them .30-06 Chauchats. Not that it did them any good, poor sods.
 

Zen9

Banned
I seem to recall watch Ian of Forgotten Weapons talking about the Nippon Special Steel rifle.

It overcame the need for ultra high tolerance machining of the toggle lock by using a blow forward piston to break the toggle. Apparently it worked well but failed thanks to Japanese political/corruption issues.
 
intermediate cartridge and the introducing that cartridge into service.
That's the key problem: getting any military to believe an intermediate round is a good idea. The weapon itself is actually easier.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

That's the key problem: getting any military to believe an intermediate round is a good idea. The weapon itself is actually easier.
You'd probably have more luck trying to go SCHV in WW1 than intermediate caliber. Though the thread was about WW2, the .25-3000 cartridge is an awesome option for WW1 SLRs/autorifles and even an LMG.
 
You'd probably have more luck trying to go SCHV in WW1 than intermediate caliber. Though the thread was about WW2, the .25-3000 cartridge is an awesome option for WW1 SLRs/autorifles and even an LMG.
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
Those all seem a bit over-powered, to me. What about a .255x1.5" or 7x40mm? MV around 2500fps, maybe 100gr or 115gr.

I confess, I've never seen SCHV before, either.:oops:
 

Deleted member 1487

Those all seem a bit over-powered, to me. What about a .255x1.5" or 7x40mm? MV around 2500fps, maybe 100gr or 115gr.

I confess, I've never seen SCHV before, either.:oops:
Small caliber, high velocity, like the 5.56 NATO. Since the 6.35x49mm isn't really that much longer than 5.56x45mm, though wide and heavier, for WW1 it would be a rock star compared to everything else and get you pretty close to the equivalent of an M16 in an semi-auto rifle or autorifle.

The Lewis 'assault phase rifle' or even BAR in .25-3000 would be quite a bit lighter, super easy to manage the recoil, and better performing ballistically and in terms of wounding power than any WW1 intermediate cartridge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3+ times as many ammo wagons we need. The + because the horses need fodder and the single most bulky item carried is fodder.
Absolutely true. Let's not forget the real reason the German advance in 1914 stalled wasn't the French, it was getting too far from the railheads to keep an advance supplied.
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.
I won't dispute the usefulness of MG, but IMO, this is the bottom line. In the scheme of things, infantry rifles are the chrome on the bumpers, & arty is the bodyshell (so to speak).
Small caliber, high velocity, like the 5.56 NATO.
Thx for clearing that up.

As for wounding effects, I'm unqualified to say. I wonder about the power of the round for the user more, & figure the suppressive effect is going to trump the killing in most cases, so that's where the focus ought to be. (I may be wrong...)
 

Deleted member 1487

As for wounding effects, I'm unqualified to say. I wonder about the power of the round for the user more, & figure the suppressive effect is going to trump the killing in most cases, so that's where the focus ought to be. (I may be wrong...)
Indeed true and it's weight would allow for double the number of carried rounds.
 
Indeed true and it's weight would allow for double the number of carried rounds.
Plus which, if you reduce the power of the ammo, you can lighten the rifle, & find other crap for the squaddies to carry to more than make up the diff.:openedeyewink: (That's on top of 4-5x more ammo.:eek: )
trickiest part of a WW1 'Sten' is the magazine.
Probably it takes a brainstorm or ISOT, but can you do it with a variety of the Calico helical mag?
 

Deleted member 1487

Plus which, if you reduce the power of the ammo, you can lighten the rifle, & find other crap for the squaddies to carry to more than make up the diff.:openedeyewink: (That's on top of 4-5x more ammo.:eek: )
Probably it takes a brainstorm or ISOT, but can you do it with a variety of the Calico helical mag?
I hear they don't work well in practice, especially in field conditions. Probably best to stick to 30 round mags and have a quick reloading plan.
 
Top