IIRC they tried and couldn't get it to work practically in WW1.
Or after. had a crazy high RoF, due to the light bolt, and the design layout (high bore axis, even with shoulder stock) and light weight means little accuracy, or control
IIRC they tried and couldn't get it to work practically in WW1.
Which was a failure in the mud of the trenches too.still larger than the Mondragon Rifles the Germans used.
Indeed. Single shot in carbine mode with the 9mm Export round it was probably as good as the Winchester SLRs.Or after. had a crazy high RoF, due to the light bolt, and the design layout (high bore axis, even with shoulder stock) and light weight means little accuracy, or control
They take too long to reload and hold at most 8 rounds. They're also of doubtful legality under the Hague convention. The Germans threatened to execute any US soldier armed with one in 1918 for that reason. Their argument was that slugs caused "unnecessary suffering", like Dum Dums.Shotguns seem like a shorter technological jump,
They take too long to reload and hold at most 8 rounds. They're also of doubtful legality under the Hague convention. The Germans threatened to execute any US soldier armed with one in 1918 for that reason. Their argument was that slugs caused "unnecessary suffering", like Dum Dums.
If both sides have SMGs, attackers will have difficulty reaching the trenches, and the fewer attackers who reach trenches anyway will be probably gunned down in trenches too.You don't think a proper SMG would help an attacker fight though trenches more easily?
Main problem wouldn't IMHO be the technical side.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?
...
What impact would that have on ... tactics ...
Could have been around then without a doubt, but still ... unhandy in confined trech-enviroments compared to a SMG.No real reason this couldn't have been done a hundred years sooner
![]()
French arguably did this with the RSC 1917 and Chauchat. They fielded more semi autos and automatic weapons than the rest of the allied nations combined. Shotguns are a blind alley and the 1907 a curiosity at best.
I generally agree. The story of WW1 on the western front seems to have been a struggle to provide adequate amounts of artillery and heavy machine guns, then figuring out the need for mobile machine guns and how to provide those, while also figuring out how to adapt tactics for mass firepower in a conscript army. Once those have all been adequately solved then the more niche elements come into play like better rifles etc.When you fielding amris of millions of men putting a gun in every pair of hands is already a massive undertaking in money, time and resources, diverting some of that to make significant number of SMGs? Not really likely. Which also means that weapons development and developers are aware of that so any project that deviates form the norm and normal demand is going to be be pretty damn niche.
I generally agree. The story of WW1 on the western front seems to have been a struggle to provide adequate amounts of artillery and heavy machine guns, then figuring out the need for mobile machine guns and how to provide those, while also figuring out how to adapt tactics for mass firepower in a conscript army. Once those have all been adequately solved then the more niche elements come into play like better rifles etc.
Earlier SMGs don’t seem like they would be a major thing if one is lacking in more significant items like machine guns or artillery. I know the soviets got tremendous mileage out of SMGs in WW2 but I believe they also had adequate heavier weapons to support them.
The main benefit would possibly be in the simplified manufacture. Even an old fashioned SMG like a Bergman should be a bit easier to make than a bolt action rifle, so infantry could have a selection of SMGs and modern bolt action rifles instead of having to turn out the contents of every armoury and warehouse looking for anything breechloading that wouldn’t explode as OTL.
Even with a machined SMG the big win is in the bolt/breechface (SMGs just have a big lump of metal bouncing back and fort instead of all the complicated interlocking parts) and the barrels (two SMG barrels for one rifle barrel) plus ammo (multiple small low power cartridges for each large rifle cartridge). However I agree it would be easy to get it all wrong like with the Thompson which is of the right timeframe and crazy over complicated. The rest probably is a wash. I think OTL French recruits were variously trained with everything from single shot Remingtons and Gras rifles to bolt action Lebels (tube mag) and Berthiers (clip mag) so its not like there was a common maintenance drill or manual of arms.if Bolt action rifle is individually harder or more resource intensive to make than a simple SMG (and I don't really know enough to say but unless it's a really simple SMG I can't imagine there's much in it), the countries involved in WW1 had decades of experience of making bolt action rifles, armouries full of them, established production lines for making more of them. Established armies trained in them (and established training systems for training new recruits in them. stock piles of ammunition for them.
Those will make submachine guns redundant altogether once they are adopted. The shotgun reload times decrease to be the same as a submachine gun, the magazine size increases to be the same as a submachine gun (with 30-round drums), and the barrel length goes down to the same as a submachine gun. The only reason submachine guns even existed in the first place was because almost all shotgun designers were too unimaginative to think of this for over 100 years.No real reason this couldn't have been done a hundred years sooner
![]()
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the big benefit of the SMG over the shotgun, besides the treaty interpretations of cruel small arms, is that the ammo is a lot lighter and recoil is much much more controllable, while the weapon is far smaller and cheaper to make. As Riain's link showed SMGs are also more likely to score a disabling hit at shorter ranges due to volume of fire weight of projectile (plus have greater suppression ability), while shotguns are limited to ranges of about 45m practical accuracy.Those will make submachine guns redundant altogether once they are adopted. The shotgun reload times decrease to be the same as a submachine gun, the magazine size increases to be the same as a submachine gun (with 30-round drums), and the barrel length goes down to the same as a submachine gun. The only reason submachine guns even existed in the first place was because almost all shotgun designers were too unimaginative to think of this for over 100 years.
Shotguns will shrink in barrel length to become only slightly larger than SMGs once box magazines are used while being much simpler than their tube magazine counterparts.while the weapon is far smaller and cheaper to make.
The opposite is true. An automatic shotgun may fire at 250-300 rpm and put out 8 pellets of 00 buckshot per shot, giving an effective ROF of 2000+ pellets per minute, or more practically the equivalent of an 8-round burst 250 times per minute.As Riain's link showed SMGs are also more likely to score a disabling hit at shorter ranges due to volume of fire weight of projectile (plus have greater suppression ability)
Better and more tanks, trucks, and air power were the primary factors that made WWII less static than WWI, not small arms.
would make that clear, but obviously not.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.