Submachine Guns available in 1915

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if the major powers in WW1 had been able to field practical SMG designs by 1915 for ground forces to use in trench warfare? It seems remarkable that none really were able to before 1918 and even then only in tiny numbers overall. What if the various militaries had been more on the ball and developed something like the MP18 or Villar Perosa with either top or side mounted straight magazines (not snail drums)? Or perhaps the Hellriegel M1915 is simplified and used magazines instead of a drum and is widely issued? What impact would that have on trench fighting and tactics if such a weapon was standard and pretty widely available by 1916-17? Would it change the general post-war evolution of infantry weapons, doctrine, and tactics?
 

Deleted member 94680

Earlier development of the assault rifle?

SMGs being in use for practically the entirety of WWI would mean what happened in WWII gets moved forward 20 years and the rest follows from there.

I can’t see it changing the doctrine of trench raids or WWI trench warfare that greatly. More rounds going in either direction, sure, but the general picture would pretty much be the same.
 
As it happens I just read that Operational Research showed that fully automatic fire has all sorts of upsides at combat ranges in fully supressed environments, while downsides such as short range and running out of ammo are rarely significant problems.

My guess is that if one side was ahead of the curve introducing smgs it would gain the upper hand in small unit action, like patrolling no mans land. Once this becomes obvious I imagine that it will be exploited at the lower tactical levels and gradually be supported higher up the command chain. Perhaps this would make the first smgs adopter the first to widely use infiltration tactics by default as smgs encourage such behavior.
 

Deleted member 1487

As it happens I just read that Operational Research showed that fully automatic fire has all sorts of upsides at combat ranges in fully supressed environments, while downsides such as short range and running out of ammo are rarely significant problems.
Which report was that?
 

Driftless

Donor
What impact during the opening phases of the war, where urban/house clearing fights occurred? i.e. If the Germans have SMG's and the Allies don't, does that speed the German advance?

(Working on the theory that if auto-loader pistols have existed for a number of years, SMG's shouldn't have been a big technological leap.)
 

SwampTiger

Banned
In 1915, you had the introduction of the Villar Perosa and semi-automatic rifles, Winchester Model 1907, which were, by 1917, converted to full auto. The earlier conversion of the Villar Perosa to a SMG would have helped the Italians along the bloody Isonzo front. A change in commander and/or more heavy artillery would have helped more. The earlier adaptation of the 1907, more of an assault rifle, to full auto would have some impact in France, but probably not enough to change the war decisively. The Russian Federov Automat, also more assault rifle, was introduced, but had little impact. The main problem was scale of introduction. If one of major powers had started the war with a submachine gun or assault rifle as part of their doctrine and embedded within their normal TO&E, you may see a major effect from their use. By the time the MP18/OVP appears, it is too late. The development of a reliable LMG would have a greater effect IMHO.
 
Which ever side develops a practical SMG will have a huge advantage in trench raids. Much better than a club or sharpened entrenching tool. It would be rapidly copied by the other side as soon as one was captured.
 

Deleted member 1487

(Working on the theory that if auto-loader pistols have existed for a number of years, SMG's shouldn't have been a big technological leap.)
Agreed.

In 1915, you had the introduction of the Villar Perosa and semi-automatic rifles, Winchester Model 1907, which were, by 1917, converted to full auto. The earlier conversion of the Villar Perosa to a SMG would have helped the Italians along the bloody Isonzo front. A change in commander and/or more heavy artillery would have helped more. The earlier adaptation of the 1907, more of an assault rifle, to full auto would have some impact in France, but probably not enough to change the war decisively. The Russian Federov Automat, also more assault rifle, was introduced, but had little impact. The main problem was scale of introduction. If one of major powers had started the war with a submachine gun or assault rifle as part of their doctrine and embedded within their normal TO&E, you may see a major effect from their use. By the time the MP18/OVP appears, it is too late. The development of a reliable LMG would have a greater effect IMHO.
The 1907 was considered a failure by the Allies who used it. The reliable LMG already existed: the Madsen and the Lewis Gun. I actually disagree that the Villar Perosa would benefit Italy in the mountain warfare they were in in most cases given the Afghanistan example. More heavy artillery probably would not have helped as WW1 demonstrated in general. The Avtomat was a light automatic rifle more than an assault rifle due to how powerful the round was...but that of course can be debateable to death. 1918 of course was too late for any small arm to really matter and yes 1914 if one side or the other had access to something the other did not would have mattered more...but in the middle war when trench combat was very heavy an SMG would have been very helpful on the Western Front (and in some situations in the East).
 

Deleted member 1487

So why did the French make a three orders of them, in 1916 and 1917 after the initial 1915 purchase, and over a million .351 cartridges?
IIRC for use as a survival weapon for shot down pilots. They were judged as a failure for standard army use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1907#World_War_I_Orders
The government initially ordered 300 Model 1907 rifles in October 1915 from Winchester, soon followed by an order for 2,500 more rifles. Ammunition orders for these rifles exceeded 1.5 million cartridges of .351SL before 1917. Subsequent orders in 1917 and 1918 totaled 2,200 Model 1907 rifles.
That's a pretty tiny order.


Shotguns seem like a shorter technological jump,
They were to a degree, but the Europeans generally did not use them out of a sense of them being immoral...which the US did not care about.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
I agree the SMG would have helped in the trenches. French kept buying 1907's, and requested they be provided as full-auto versions. The French subsequently loosely based their Ribeyrolles 1918 on the M1907. The Italians needed to get rid of Cadorna. SMG's weren't a huge help in the mountains, but provided some automatic fire support. No nation ordered or deployed enough automatic weapons to enable movement past the trenches, especially light, portable machine guns, at the beginning of the war. Artillery became the major killer of soldiers.

IF, one nation started the war with 100,000 SMGs and sufficient ammunition, it may have been able to disrupt an opponent's attack or defense. Alternately, the introduction of SMGs could have instigated trench warfare earlier. The doctrine for proper use was developed during the war, primarily by the French and Germans. The examples of the Villa Perosa and the Hellriegel M1918 show the confusion over tactical use of these weapons.

No nation recognized the value of the intermediate round automatic carbines developed during the war. These should have stunted the development of the SMG from the start.
 

trurle

Banned
What if the major powers in WW1 had been able to field practical SMG designs by 1915 for ground forces to use in trench warfare? It seems remarkable that none really were able to before 1918 and even then only in tiny numbers overall. What if the various militaries had been more on the ball and developed something like the MP18 or Villar Perosa with either top or side mounted straight magazines (not snail drums)? Or perhaps the Hellriegel M1915 is simplified and used magazines instead of a drum and is widely issued? What impact would that have on trench fighting and tactics if such a weapon was standard and pretty widely available by 1916-17? Would it change the general post-war evolution of infantry weapons, doctrine, and tactics?
I would rather bet for full-automatic modification/upgrade of Mauser C96, which was already widely used by 1915. IOTL, full-automatic versions of C96 first appeared in 1927, but seems the modifications were pretty straightforward given the proper motivation.

The effects would be basically less successful massed bayonet attacks, and earlier switch to modern (~8 meter spacing between soldier), rarefied attack lines. Overall, this mean the WWI will become even more static and trench-based than IOTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

I would rather bet for full-automatic modification/upgrade of Mauser C96, which was already widely used by 1915. IOTL, full-automatic versions of C96 first appeared in 1927, but seems the modifications were pretty straightforward given the proper motivation.

The effects would be basically less successful massed bayonet attacks, and earlier switch to modern (~8 meter spacing between soldier), rarefied attack lines. Overall, this mean the WWI will become even more static and trench-based than IOTL.
IIRC they tried and couldn't get it to work practically in WW1.
You don't think a proper SMG would help an attacker fight though trenches more easily?
 

SwampTiger

Banned
It is much easier to convert a blow back weapon to full auto without causing reliability issues. I think massed bayonet charges stopped fairly early. The real advantages of SMGs are to suppress enemy fire while advancing, and handiness in the close confines of the trenches.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
SMGs being in use for practically the entirety of WWI would mean what happened in WWII gets moved forward 20 years and the rest follows from there.
Better and more tanks, trucks, and air power were the primary factors that made WWII less static than WWI, not small arms.
 
Top