Single shots forever

Why would they be better suited for that technology? They all lost wars during that era.

With Muskets, the Ottomans were literally the first one’s to use it in Europe and conquered most of it, Japan had Samurai which would be good for hand to hand combat because of the one use of the gun and how skilled the samurai were with a sword, and China... okay maybe not China
 
Last edited:
Why would they be better suited for that technology? They all lost wars during that era.

Also, the reasons why they keep losing wars because of either political problems, and the failure to modernized the army. If everyone had muskets, they would be equal to other powers in millitary. Maybe they would have problems in modernization in Society and Naval, but infrantry? They could be good for a while
 
With Muskets, the Ottomans were literally the first one’s to use it in Europe and conquered most of it, Japan had Samurai which would be good for hand to hand combat because the of the one use of the gun, and China... okay maybe not China
Ottomans still got kicked around in the 19th Century IIRC, and the Shogunate didn't survive the period as they got crushed by the same clans that were humiliated by Western powers. Samurai prowess in hand-to-hand combat wasn't something they had uniquely to themselves, other countries did train people to fight in melee combat, nor was samurai training what it used to be as the Edo period transformed the samurai from a warrior caste that enforced the will of their lords on the battlefield to an increasingly irrelevant social elite that had no use and was destroyed by the Meiji Revolution.
Also, the reasons why they keep losing wars because of either political problems, and the failure to modernized the army. If everyone had muskets, they would be equal to other powers in millitary. Maybe they would have problems in modernization in Society and Naval, but infrantry? They could be good for a while
Having muskets doesn't fix social or political problems or instantly modernize their armies. There's more to a modern army (even in the 1800's) than everyone having a firearm of some kind.
 
Given metallic cartridges, what prevents Colt (or somebody) developing another variety of repeater, even if the lever or bolt action never occurs to anybody? (Which, btw, needs explaining itself.)
the pod doesn't need to be "these guns never exist," just that "they are never adopted"
giving the costs of arming entire armies with new guns every time a new patent is filed and the desire of ordinance departments to save money combined with a natural resistance to innovation that was found in the militaries of the time it's possible, but unlikely, that the major power decide that a magazine is more trouble than they're worth and as such actively avoid adoption of repeating rifles. the major armies would then issue their 2nd-3rd gen single shots as their troops main combat rifle

assuming that small bore, smokeless powder cartridges are available for the machineguns, the major powers would rechamber these rifles for those rounds
so, realistically the french would be issuing the gras 74/15, the germans the mauser 71 in 8mm, the brits the martini- enfield, the russians the berdan II in 7.62, etc.
now the us might switch out the springfield 1888 for the remington rolling block or a domestic ss bolt gun after the spanish-american war

otherwise you're looking at the same arrsinals as the early 1880's
 
the pod doesn't need to be "these guns never exist," just that "they are never adopted"
Except they're going to be, eventually. They're bound to be. Somebody's going to want an advantage, & rifles give it to them. Then the headache of muzzle-loading leads to asking if breechloading is possible. And then the pressure on mobility & protection leads to skirmish line & ultimately *tanks, if breechloading doesn't lead directly to revolver-fed rifles (if not bolt or lever actions). Technology does not exist in isolation. If you're going to introduce a "slow", you need to slow a great many other things, not least metallurgy (weapons able to withstand the pressure) & development of steam power (whence rifling, with the ability to deliver tight bores).
costs of arming entire armies with new guns every time a new patent is filed
I'm unaware of any government, anywhere, ever, doing that.:rolleyes:
actively avoid adoption of repeating rifles
Like the U.S. did? When no other major nation did?:rolleyes: So why did nobody else? They couldn't afford to give up an advantage, maybe?:rolleyes:
assuming that small bore, smokeless powder cartridges are available for the machineguns
And why adopt MG if you refuse to adopt repeaters? Where's the need?:confounded:

In fact, without breechloaders, I wonder if anybody ever bothers to look at *Maxims. Gatlings, maybe not either. You can't have it both ways.
otherwise you're looking at the same arrsinals as the early 1880's
And unless you somehow slow the advance of chemistry, metallurgy, & a variety of other things, that's pretty much what you have to get. The choices made by nations around the world produced the OTL outcome for reasons beyond the rule of cool.:rolleyes:
 
Except they're going to be, eventually.
yes but for the au to work eventually only has to be post 1916,
remember that it wasn't until after ww1 that many european armies got rid of the mag cut offs on their rifles, and up until then the functional doctrine was to single load the gun and save the mag for an emergency

If you're going to introduce a "slow", you need to slow a great many other things, not least metallurgy (weapons able to withstand the pressure) & development of steam power (whence rifling, with the ability to deliver tight bores).
this has no bearing on my argument, i'm not arguing that these advancements won't happen, in arguing that these countries main combat rifles won't have a magazine,
repeaters are still in demand on the civilian market
and tbh allowing small elite units to issue limited numbers does not break the op

I'm unaware of any government, anywhere, ever, doing that.
austria hungary (3 rifles in 4 years) germany (converted the g71 to a repeater in 1884, then turned around an adopted a completely different rifle in 1888) france (rearmed it's entire army with the lebel in 2 years)

Like the U.S. did? When no other major nation did? So why did nobody else? They couldn't afford to give up an advantage, maybe?
because the us didn't have the money to purchase the ammo they would need to feed repeaters,

And why adopt MG if you refuse to adopt repeaters? Where's the need?

In fact, without breechloaders, I wonder if anybody ever bothers to look at *Maxims. Gatlings, maybe not either. You can't have it both ways.
you do know that one of the first niches that the gatling and nordenfelt filled in numbers was to protect battleships from small torpedo boats? a roll that the maxim later filled

And unless you somehow slow the advance of chemistry, metallurgy, & a variety of other things, that's pretty much what you have to get. The choices made by nations around the world produced the OTL outcome for reasons beyond the rule of cool.
again i don't argue the these improvements won't be available, just that politics will prevent them from being adopted in large numbers

if you find the op unrealistic, that's your problem, i'm trying to figure out the most probable way it could happen
 
So here's an idea for a PoD that I don't think is too implausible. Many smokeless powders require nitrates, and in the late 19th/early 20th centuries the majority of the world's fixed nitrogen came from northern Chile. If these supplies aren't discovered, or rendered otherwise unavailable, smokeless powder might be too expensive to issue to large armies; and, without smokeless powder, a soldier who fires too rapidly is quickly going to become so engulfed in smoke that he can't see anything to shoot at. In such circumstances, general might decide that repeating small arms aren't practical weapons for the battlefield, and stick with single-shots.
 
without smokeless powder, a soldier who fires too rapidly is quickly going to become so engulfed in smoke that he can't see anything to shoot at.
Doesn't fouling become an issue in pretty short order?

And do I find the idea of single shots persisting implausible? I do, & I've pointed out why. Convincing reasons why they might may exist, & not finding Chilean nitrates sounds like a good one. (It makes me wonder about islands with bat guano, however. And about the Haber process happening sooner.)
 
Doesn't fouling become an issue in pretty short order?

Probably, yes. I'm not sure how bad it would be with ordinary rifles, but WW1-style machine guns would definitely be rendered inoperable in short order. (That is if the massive quantity of smoke didn't suffocate the crew first.)

And do I find the idea of single shots persisting implausible? I do, & I've pointed out why. Convincing reasons why they might may exist, & not finding Chilean nitrates sounds like a good one. (It makes me wonder about islands with bat guano, however. And about the Haber process happening sooner.)

AFAIK bat guano mostly came from islands near the Chilean-Peruvian border, and were the subject of several wars during the 19th century. Maybe if these wars are longer-lasting and more frequent, supply would be interrupted enough that there aren't enough nitrates for widespread smokeless powder. Maybe, if conditions are right, we could even see the countries deliberately destroying stocks of guano, in order to deny them to their enemies.

As for the Haber process, I'm sure its discovery can be pushed back a few years with a well-timed industrial accident or two. After all, it's not like we need to delay it indefinitely, just long enough to stop repeating rifles having a noticeable impact in WW1.
 
Incidentally, does anybody know what effect a continued use of black powder would have on artillery? Would it be possible to build cannons of a similar strength to OTL's WW1, or would they be less devastating?
 
Incidentally, does anybody know what effect a continued use of black powder would have on artillery? Would it be possible to build cannons of a similar strength to OTL's WW1, or would they be less devastating?
I'd say they'd be less effective, because of lower range, but the real change is HE shells & hydraulic recoil mechanisms, so the change would be (IMO) small but perceptible. Field phones obviate the issue of smoke, for indirect fire; smoke might make counterbattery easier (or more hazardous, depending on which side of it you're on :eek: ).

There's a question of AAA, too, & of air-air engagements; any technical change making MG less probable means the effort to blind air recce a lot harder, too, & that has serious strategic implications.
 
For me this doesn't make any sense for example in the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 before the invention of smokeless powder the Turks had a repeating firearm in the form of the Winchester model 1866 invented almost twenty years before the development of Powder B. So this shows that repeating firearms are perfectly viable with old school gunpowder. They won't be as effective as weapons using smokeless powder but still a massive improvement noticed by all of the European powers in the aftermath of this war. They would have to be glued to the idiot ball to continue to insist on only developing single shots. People have been developing repeating firearms for a long time but didn't have the manufacturing capabilities to mass produce them to equip an army until the later half of the 19th century.
 
Top