Submachine Guns available in 1915

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
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
 

Deleted member 1487

still larger than the Mondragon Rifles the Germans used.
Which was a failure in the mud of the trenches too.
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
Indeed. Single shot in carbine mode with the 9mm Export round it was probably as good as the Winchester SLRs.
 
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.
 
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.

No real reason this couldn't have been done a hundred years sooner
Mossberg-Launches-Mag-Fed-590-Pump-Action-Shotgun.jpg
 
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.
 

trurle

Banned
You don't think a proper SMG would help an attacker fight though trenches more easily?
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.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
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 ...
Main problem wouldn't IMHO be the technical side.

I'm sure with a more ... thorough search within old patents we could find numerous proposals for SMG ... or conversions of automatic pistols as existed i.e. for the Mauser C96.

BIGGEST problem would be a change of ... ideology and doctrine within the high-up brass-bearers in almost every army BEFORE some introduction, as @Riain already hinted at.
These mostly old(er) chumps were all for markmanship as THE virtue of a soldier/infanterist.
One shot -> one dead enemy.

I somehow doubt that before the experience of WW1 there would have been any 'fan' of automatic shortrange weaponry for infanterists.
Even after the lessons of WW1 the intro of automatic weapons for infantry - regardless what ammo - aside from heavy, light or - veery radical - universal MGs, were ... problematic.
The high-up-brass even then scorn them as ammo-spillers shooting-discipline killers and causing 'blood-scare' within a soldier.
 
It would all come down to production and deployment. The first side to master that equation has a major advantage.The end result is more people die faster.
 
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.

Until 1917 the USA Army used Shotguns M97 for clean out German trench.

The Austrians had also SMG design in October 1915, but who or what happen to It is mystery...
Maschinengewehr Standschützen Hellriegel
 
It a doctrinal issue, and IMO a practical issue. The situation that most favors a SMG (or shotgun) is a trench raid. But while Trench raids were an ongoing thing that started as ad-hoc by small units and by the end was larger scale and driving changes in infantry doctrine (i.e Stoßtruppen) it was still in comparison to men with rifles a tiny number of people. On top of this there are also still situations where a SMG is less good than a rifle in WW1, so you can't have the whole 'a weapon for every situation all carried by a squad who might get into every situation'* set up.

When you fielding armies 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 from the norm and normal demand is going to be pretty damn niche.



*this kind of works nowadays when armies are way smaller, squads and fire teams are regular operating units. But during total war were massed tactics is the norm and individual communication is mouth to ear and with call ups in the muti millions? No chance
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

So post-WW1, if SMGs prove themselves as a weapon in WW1, what sort of doctrine develops? Do we see something like intermediate select fire weapons or something like an RPD or even caliber changes to limit recoil and maximize firepower at 'normal' infantry combat ranges?
 
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.
 
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.

yep, I agree

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.

True, but even 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 (established production lines for that)
 
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.
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.
However I take your general point that absent really desperate shortages and/or an extremely superior design, the middle of the greatest war in history is a poor time to start fixing something that isn’t obviously broken. If things were truly truly desperate I think we would be more likely to see expedients similar to the 1945 arisakas or the VG-5 than a SMG type solution.
 
No real reason this couldn't have been done a hundred years sooner
Mossberg-Launches-Mag-Fed-590-Pump-Action-Shotgun.jpg
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.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
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.
 
while the weapon is far smaller and cheaper to make.
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.
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)
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.
 

Deleted member 94680

Better and more tanks, trucks, and air power were the primary factors that made WWII less static than WWI, not small arms.

I was, of course, referring to the development of SMGs, not the entire nature of the conflict itself.

I thought writing
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.
would make that clear, but obviously not.
 
Top