PC: Mass SMG use in 1914?

[Deleted member 1487]

Well yes. And this did lead to more interest in intermediate, semi-auto and selective fire weapons


Which lead to the MP-18 as the 'machine pistols' weren't suitable. For a workable SMG to be available in quantity in 1914 a divergence years earlier would be needed.


Typically the maximum distance between trench lines on the Western Front was less than three hundred metres, and usually far less, beyond useful SMG range but fine for rifle cartridges.

Unless Europeans fight a major war amongst themselves first and realize they need it before WW1 I don't see how it happens. The Villar-Perosa SMG was designed as an aircraft gun before being adapted to a ground weapon as an example; people didn't really see the need for it and eventually it did come about as a trench weapon. The Russo-Japanese war wasn't enough to change much either. The problem is if you have a more recent war that creates the desire for an SMG means WW1 as we know it doesn't happen.

However at ranges under 100m massed SMG fire would have been useful for attackers and defenders.

No doubt. Having read some of the tactical recommendations developed by the Germans during Rzhev (arguably the biggest trench warfare campaign during WW2), plus of course the classic example of the Soviet experience with SMG companies, it was clear they were vital in trench warfare: SMGs with 1000 rounds were vital defensive weapons as they could fire a lot without overheating as quickly as an MG, were great ambush weapons, and light and maneuverable, easier to use and learn to use effectively than a rifle especially in tight places.

 

[vizzer]

Perhaps coming out Colonial warfare where SMGs could be used to beat off a charge by Zulus or Dervishes at close quarters?
Or developed by navies to aid in boarding operations?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Perhaps coming out Colonial warfare where SMGs could be used to beat off a charge by Zulus or Dervishes at close quarters?

You'd have to find a POD then to develop them for close range colonial warfare. Remember the MG itself was still brand new and long range was the order of the day.

Or developed by navies to aid in boarding operations?

Were they still doing that by the 20th Century?

 

[vizzer]

[QUOTE="wiking, post: 19187694, member: 1487"

Were they still doing that by the 20th Century?[/QUOTE]

The RN still issued cutlasses for boarding actions in WW2 - so while they may not have carried any out they were still planning for them!

 

[Intosh]

Range is pretty marginal. Most infantry combat even in the time of full power rifles took place at quite close range. Moreover, the bolt action rifle's firepower pales compared to the heavy machine guns of WWI armies; a brigade armed with SMGs advancing under covering fire from their HMGs (and artillery) would be able to close with rifle-armed infantry just as well, and would have an overwhelming firepower advantage when they got in close range.

Do you mean manufacturing the amount of ammo needed, or carrying it? In either case, the Great Powers of WWI were able to manufacture ammunition on an immense scale, and today soldiers carry hundreds of cartridges for select fire weapons considerably heavier than the pistol caliber weapons we're talking about.

The effective range of a SMG is 25 to 50 m. It's to short for use in countryside warfare. SMG is effective in urban warfare.

WW1 saw the introduction of LMG at the beginning of the war, these weapons need two years to be use in great numbers. If nobody though about SMG is because nobody expected the trenches warfare.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The effective range of a SMG is 25 to 50 m. It's to short for use in countryside warfare. SMG is effective in urban warfare.

Depends on the barrel length and cartridge. 100m was standard for weapons like the PPSH41, MP40, and even MP18, more for an experienced gunner. Longer for other systems, like those using the 9mm Export like the Danuvia 39M with 20 inch barrel; it's effective range is between 200-300m.

Something like the Winchester Self Loading could be effective out to 300m or more, but was limited by the sights to shorter ranges. With better sights and spitzer type bullet a system like that, which relied on simply blowback, could be quite effective out to longer ranges, but will have a stout recoil. Still they were converted to magazine feed with a select fire lever and used in WW1, so were apparently good enough there. With a smaller caliber, lighter bullet (say the WSL necked down to 6.35mm) in that sort of weapon there is no reason it couldn't be used in automatic fire as a proto-assault rifle and have some justification for military use pre-war that an SMG wouldn't, otherwise you're back to the 9mm export in a longer barrel (say 16-18 inches, much shorter than a battle rifle) as a 'light rifle' with the potential to fire in automatic, also in simple blowback.

Another option is the European militaries adopting lever type guns. A .38 Colt (precursor to the later .357 Magnum) in lever action carbine would be pretty useful at normal combat ranges and similar type weapons were proven combat effective in the ACW. Since then improvements in rifle powders boosted performance:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/lever-action-ballistics-30-30-vs-357-magnum/
Simpler than even a simple blowback weapon. Might be a good officer weapon to start or at least for say cavalry officers and potentially backup weapon for regular cavalry instead of a pistol. Or even a PDW weapon for non-combat troops instead of a pistol.

Reloading is a pain compared to magazine fed weapons, but there are some with box magazine:
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/01/henry-repeating-arms-long-ranger-rifle/#axzz5tfY3IfGy
https://www.browning.com/products/firearms/rifles/blr.html

It would complicate supply lines a bit, but if the utility is recognized it would be worth it.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

It was trench actions in WWI that made the SMG an attractive proposition. Until the powers that be had it forced into their reckoning, trench actions (if they were to occur) were assumed to be brief, temporary affairs that would lead to “the breakthrough” where a rifle would be needed again. Hence, no requirement for a specialist, short-range weapon.

Maybe a long, drawn out, almost stalemated Russo-Japanese War?

 

[dandan_noodles]

Range was not marginal in 1914. In a war of movment infantry would select defensive position that allowed for good fields of fire, and HMG would open up at more than 600m and the infantry would engage at long range. A single rifleman may not hit easily at 300m, but a platoon can make closing to less than 200m across a flat field a lethal preposition.

The firepower contribution of the riflemen is marginal compared to their HMGs; it's certainly not enough to make up for if the attackers have just a couple more, and even with even numbers, it's a slight advantage at long range that comes with practical helplessness at close range.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Maybe a long, drawn out, almost stalemated Russo-Japanese War?

That pretty much was the Russo-Japanese War.

 

[AdA]

In

The firepower contribution of the riflemen is marginal compared to their HMGs; it's certainly not enough to make up for if the attackers have just a couple more, and even with even numbers, it's a slight advantage at long range that comes with practical helplessness at close range.

In 1914 there were just a few HMG at battallion level that would not always be deployed with the forward companies in time. And a platoon using disciplined rifle fire can make it virtually impossible to close in to SMG range if they are on a decent position dominating a flat area. Remenber how devatating was rifle fire in the 1870 war for Prusian infantry, and the French only had single shot (bolt action) Chassepots.

 

[AdA]

You'd have to find a POD then to develop them for close range colonial warfare. Remember the MG itself was still brand new and long range was the order of the day.


Were they still doing that by the 20th Century?

Thievy had to to check for contraband. Even submarines would be required to send boarding parties to neutral vessels. Of curse this would be unopposed boarding a covered by the ship (or vessel) guns, but still close range firepower would be nice to have.

 

[dandan_noodles]

In

In 1914 there were just a few HMG at battallion level that would not always be deployed with the forward companies in time. And a platoon using disciplined rifle fire can make it virtually impossible to close in to SMG range if they are on a decent position dominating a flat area. Remenber how devatating was rifle fire in the 1870 war for Prusian infantry, and the French only had single shot (bolt action) Chassepots.

The Prussians were still wearing distinctly colored uniforms and using lots of close order formations, and in any case Chassepot fire was wholly outclassed by Prussian artillery. By 1914, the QF divisional guns in wide use are going to represent an even bigger proportional share of firepower than rifles than they did in 1870. Once you have practically any fire coming back your way, even if it's just the machine gun sections and artillery, accuracy drops off to almost nothing, especially with bolt action rifles where you can't even keep a shot to shot sight picture. Riflemen, facing an enemy in drab khaki/feldgrau, who advance in open order rushes, using cover and concealment, under a constant rattle of machine gun fire, aren't going to make many hits at all. Past 300 meters, you're really just wasting ammo; at 200 meters, the SMG is a much more effective weapon than the bolt action rifle, since you can shoot so much faster while keeping a sight picture. They probably won't make many hits, but under increased suppressive fire, the riflemen are going to be even less effective at 200m than they were at 300; by <100 meters, a platoon armed with SMGs can drive off a whole company of riflemen.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The Prussians were still wearing distinctly colored uniforms and using lots of close order formations, and in any case Chassepot fire was wholly outclassed by Prussian artillery. By 1914, the QF divisional guns in wide use are going to represent an even bigger proportional share of firepower than rifles than they did in 1870. Once you have practically any fire coming back your way, even if it's just the machine gun sections and artillery, accuracy drops off to almost nothing, especially with bolt action rifles where you can't even keep a shot to shot sight picture. Riflemen, facing an enemy in drab khaki/feldgrau, who advance in open order rushes, using cover and concealment, under a constant rattle of machine gun fire, aren't going to make many hits at all. Past 300 meters, you're really just wasting ammo; at 200 meters, the SMG is a much more effective weapon than the bolt action rifle, since you can shoot so much faster while keeping a sight picture. They probably won't make many hits, but under increased suppressive fire, the riflemen are going to be even less effective at 200m than they were at 300; by <100 meters, a platoon armed with SMGs can drive off a whole company of riflemen.

200m is too far for an SMG except with a long burst of fire and luck. You'd need something fast enough to be flat firing out to that range and low recoil enough to be controllable and not disrupt the sight picture between shots, while facilitating very quick follow up shots. The intermediate larger caliber rounds were one way to get there, but inefficient compared to SCHV rounds, but since we are talking about 1914 something like an intermediate cartridge carbine is probably the best you're going to get unless someone figures out how to make a roller delayed blowback system with ball bearings and figured out fluting the chamber.

 

[marathag]

200m is too far for an SMG except with a long burst of fire and luck

I have had some time with the pre-war Thompson, and with the ladder sights, it was man sized target accurate at the 200 yard range with single shots, but yes, you are lobbing 45ACP at that distance. much easier to keep groups at 100

 

[fastmongrel]

[QUOTE="wiking, post: 19187694, member: 1487"

Were they still doing that by the 20th Century?

The RN still issued cutlasses for boarding actions in WW2 - so while they may not have carried any out they were still planning for them![/QUOTE]

The Royal Navy stopped the issue of new Cutlasses after WW1 and banned their use apart from ceremonial use in 1936. The USNavy issued cutlasses till 1949 the last ones made were marked Model 1941.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I have had some time with the pre-war Thompson, and with the ladder sights, it was man sized target accurate at the 200 yard range with single shots, but yes, you are lobbing 45ACP at that distance. much easier to keep groups at 100

I have no doubt on a range that is totally doable or if you're trying to ambush someone, but in a normal combat situation where they're returning fire I think it would be pretty tough to pull off. With something like the Danuvia 39M, which is almost a light rifle, it is doable due to the power of the cartridge and length of the barrel, which pushes it into the realm of the M2 carbine. At 100m certainly the SMG basically dominates due to the volume of accurate fire it can put out even compared to say an M4 Carbine.

Methinks something like the Mannlicher 1901 Carbine with magazine is more likely than an SMG pre-WW1, especially if it ends up using a spitzer bullet instead of a round nose:

 

[AdA]

The Prussians were still wearing distinctly colored uniforms and using lots of close order formations, and in any case Chassepot fire was wholly outclassed by Prussian artillery. By 1914, the QF divisional guns in wide use are going to represent an even bigger proportional share of firepower than rifles than they did in 1870. Once you have practically any fire coming back your way, even if it's just the machine gun sections and artillery, accuracy drops off to almost nothing, especially with bolt action rifles where you can't even keep a shot to shot sight picture. Riflemen, facing an enemy in drab khaki/feldgrau, who advance in open order rushes, using cover and concealment, under a constant rattle of machine gun fire, aren't going to make many hits at all. Past 300 meters, you're really just wasting ammo; at 200 meters, the SMG is a much more effective weapon than the bolt action rifle, since you can shoot so much faster while keeping a sight picture. They probably won't make many hits, but under increased suppressive fire, the riflemen are going to be even less effective at 200m than they were at 300; by <100 meters, a platoon armed with SMGs can drive off a whole company of riflemen.

Look up reports on the initial battles of WW1, specially those in the eastern front.
Rifle fire by units is devastating in encounter battles on open ground.
The BEF, for example, couldn't have fought the actions it did in 1914 without rifles.
You really can't replace rifles with SMG until you have LMG at platoon level.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Look up reports on the initial battles of WW1, specially those in the eastern front.
Rifle fire by units is devastating in encounter battles on open ground.
The BEF, for example, couldn't have fought the actions it did in 1914 without rifles.
You really can't replace rifles with SMG until you have LMG at platoon level.

Some you could, like with NCOs and officers, though you're right that an LMG was necessary before you could say switch a majority of rifles to SMG, an LMG with quick change barrels, which simply did not exist yet.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I think an early SMG would be something like a combination of the C96 Carbine and the Schnellfeuer with a heavier bolt to slow its '17 RPS' rate of fire and eventually a bigger magazine

 

[marathag]

The BEF, for example, couldn't have fought the actions it did in 1914 without rifles.

Rifles with well trained Soldiers using them.
Think the 1915 fresh out of training camp 'Pals' Battalions would have done as well in the Race to the Sea as the far better trained BEF did?