Submachine Guns available in 1915

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
I don't think that focusing on the ballistics or industrial benefits of the smg misses the most important benefits of the weapon: the changes in tactical behavior that it would likely lead to.

I doubt we'd see the slaughter of the Somme is the BEF was the early adopter for example, because they would have spent a year winning little nighttime firefights in no mans land. As a result of such success higher commanders would adjust their methods accordingly, leading to widespread use of infiltration tactics and artillery tactics to support this success.

Thing is even if you win a succession of little nighttime fights over a long period of time it doesn't break their line or advance your own*. Even if you scale up the tactic to a large enough scale where you can do that. You still have the fundamental issue that even if you take the trench via a massed raid of Stormtrooper style fire and maneuver with SMGs rather than a traditional slow advance by rifle lines after a 6 hour bombardment, you still likely can't hold, consolidate let alone advance because you can't resupply and reinforce faster than the other side can in their counter attack.

On top of this those scaled up storm trooper style unit that did use these kind of tactics were well for want of a better term selected and specially trained forces. You can't generally turn you entire army into that (especially not 4 years into the great war) so you are still going to be relying on a combination of that plus traditional tactics to support and exploit it's use.

Another problem with lovingly selected, trained and equipped special troops is that if something goes a bit wrong and they get caught out, they die or get stopped just as well in overlapping machine gun or artillery as everyone else. So in terms of resources devoted to creating them they are quite fragile.


*Trench raids tended to have specific goals in mind as well as keeping the enemy on their toes, generally speaking information gathering or specific sabotage.
 
Last edited:
I find it amazing that people are talking about the ballistic differences between a shotgun and an smg As if the billions of rounds fired from personal weapons in ww1 were even remotely going to hit a person, or that artillery didn't kill 60% of the people and machine guns another 20%.

How does a shotgun or bolt-action rifle fare against an smg in terms of the increase in morale arising from fully automatic fire? Pretty shit is my guess.

TBF the conversation moved on a bit I think, also in the situations being discussed where either SMGs or Shotguns are of any use I.e. in WW1 trench raiding, you not getting shelled and have got past the defensive machine guns or it's all moot anyway!
 
From what I've read about shotgun lethality, 00 12 gauge buckshot is the only certain human lethal round for normal shotgun combat ranges (i.e. less than 50m).

And even then it tends to be due to the total load of the shell not a single pellet that makes them so potentially lethal. (nothing being certain in terminal ballistics, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah)
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

Firstly, my assumption is that the British would be an early adopter by a fluke more or less, perhaps because cheap SMGs doing spray-n-pray makes sense for poorly/un-trained volunteers or because they just want to get guns into the hands of a massively and rapidly expanding Army rather than some well thought-out doctrinal decision.

It makes no sense at all. It’s a waste of ammunition and reduces the chance of effective use of ammunition. Only people who have never served in the military believe this “massed spray-and-pray” nonsense. The British troops weren’t and never have been “poorly trained” by convenntional military thought of the time.

Surely bolt action rifles are easier to manufacture compared to newly designed SMGs? A Lee Enfield has far less parts compared to a MP18.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TDM
You don't win the trench war by taking the front trenches or in raids. It is the ability of artillery to isolate the battlefield and the MMG to dominate the remainder of the battlefield that stalls the leapfrogging of units that should maintain the momentum and break through into a war of movement. The SMG would be a useful trench tool no doubt but will not deal with the main issue. It needs to be allied to LMGs in the advance as a team and both need to be resupplied and fresh troops passed through.

BTW some trivia: one can think of an SMG as a shotgun that fires it's shot consecutively instead of concurrently and much of the ammunition 'wasted' in action s suppressive rather than aimed. It has the purpose of denying ground rather than specifically aiming at the enemy. An SMG with a bipod can lay suppressive fire out to 400 metres if suitably sighted. Even better if wound up as far as a simple blowback system can cope such as 9mm Mauser Export 9x25mm or Tokarev 7.62x25mm.
 

Deleted member 1487

BTW some trivia: one can think of an SMG as a shotgun that fires it's shot consecutively instead of concurrently and much of the ammunition 'wasted' in action s suppressive rather than aimed. It has the purpose of denying ground rather than specifically aiming at the enemy. An SMG with a bipod can lay suppressive fire out to 400 metres if suitably sighted. Even better if wound up as far as a simple blowback system can cope such as 9mm Mauser Export 9x25mm or Tokarev 7.62x25mm.
Interesting you bring that up; I posted in another thread about a belt fed pistol caliber SAW in WW2 and someone brought up how important it could be in WW1 due to the tighter trench ranges. The Soviets did design such a weapon in WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAD_machine_gun
Frankly I think something like that could have been extremely useful in WW2, more so even in WW1 if the technology had been worked out in time. Since infantry ranges were pretty short, having a very light weight sustained fire weapon like that would have been very useful not only in taking a trench, but holding it against counter attack. Arguably a LMG was too much gun for the job.
 
Interesting you bring that up; I posted in another thread about a belt fed pistol caliber SAW in WW2 and someone brought up how important it could be in WW1 due to the tighter trench ranges. The Soviets did design such a weapon in WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAD_machine_gun
Frankly I think something like that could have been extremely useful in WW2, more so even in WW1 if the technology had been worked out in time. Since infantry ranges were pretty short, having a very light weight sustained fire weapon like that would have been very useful not only in taking a trench, but holding it against counter attack. Arguably a LMG was too much gun for the job.

Finnish experience using the suomi in the LMG role out of desperation due to lack of LS-26es suggests that was a bad idea. They often found themselves outgunned and outranged severely in a large number of engagements. Once large numbers of DP-28s were captured these were much preferred (over both the LS-26 and suomi) as you want something to dominate the terrain with a sustained fire weapon. I remember how much emphasis was put on positioning our MG-3 for this exact purpose when I was in the infantry.

I imagine the soviets came to the same conclusions.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Finnish experience using the suomi in the LMG role out of desperation due to lack of LS-26es suggests that was a bad idea. They often found themselves outgunned and outranged severely in a large number of engagements. Once large numbers of DP-28s were captured these were much preferred (over both the LS-26 and suomi) as you want something to dominate the terrain with a sustained fire weapon. I remember how much emphasis was put on positioning our MG-3 for this exact purpose when I was in the infantry.

I imagine the soviets came to the same conclusions.
A magazine fed, non-changeable barrel weapon is simply not going out-sustain fire a belt fed quick change barrel weapon. I imagine the DP-28 was probably more 'popular' because the Finns simply had more of them rather than anything else in that category, as the Soviet weapon had a huge number of issues itself, to the point of it being a questionable sustained fire weapon. Not having ANY rifle caliber MGs would be an issue, but having a squad level pistol caliber belt fed automatic weapon would be a good addition rather than replacement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A magazine fed, non-changeable barrel weapon is simply not going out out-sustain fire a true LMG. The fact that the DP-28 was preferred indicates that the Finnish alternatives were even worse than the Soviet pan fed gun. Though I would like to see some sourcing on the claim that the use of the Suomi left the Finns outgunned by the Soviets in such a large number of Winter/Continuation War engagements. Not having ANY rifle caliber MGs would be an issue, but having a squad level pistol caliber belt fed automatic weapon would be a good addition rather than replacement.

You want to avoid having too many infantry weapon types. Belt fed pistol cartridge SMG would sorta remove a lot of the things a SMG does well while doing a pretty piss poor job as and LMG so there isn't really a justifiable niche for it.'

Also I'd like to hear your justfication for calling rifle cartridge LMGs "too much gun" when every major military in the world disagree with you.

As for the suomi not being up to par this pretty much correlates with all infantry combat experience in the last century (including my own training) so can't help you there if you do not believe me. When it comes to Terrain domination over ranges from 2-400m the LMG (preferably in a full power rifle cartridge) can't be beat. It's just a very obvious thing when you get out in the field and have to cover such a position.

Its actually interesting to see how the US and USSR/russians have wobbled between what they want to use in the role for the past century. Neither intermediate or rifle is ideal so they've shifted back and forth. 30-40 years ago both were sorta settled on Intermediate with the Minimi and RPK as standard squad level weapons. Now things are shifting back to full rifle as those weapons are getting worn out.

Also recommend everyone checking out this video. Might clarify the use of a SMG a bit.

 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

You want to avoid having too many infantry weapon types. Belt fed pistol cartridge SMG would sorta remove a lot of the things a SMG does well while doing a pretty piss poor job as and LMG so there isn't really a justifiable niche for it.'
I get the logistics concern, but in terms of utility the Soviets developed the LAD as a supplement to the PPSH, as it had about 400m range, which was the max squad engagement range. I'm not calling for replacing the rifle caliber LMG at the platoon level with a pistol caliber LMG, rather than the pistol caliber LMG would be a SAW (squad automatic weapon) to supplement SMGs and rifle carbines. Assuming we're just talking about assault teams to take trenches, then the LAD-type SAW would supplement an all SMG equipped unit, which would hand off to rifle platoons to continue the advance into open ground. SMG/LAD-SAW equipped assault teams would also have a lot of firepower out to 200-400m against counterattacks, which in trench fighting is all you need if not more.

Also I'd like to hear your justfication for calling rifle cartridge LMGs "too much gun" when every major military in the world disagree with you.
At the squad level given that infantry combat only happens below 400m (at least 90% below 300m) in the era before mass rifle/mg optics use, having a weapon capable of firing out to 1000m on automatic is counter production, as the gun, the ammo, and overall length of the weapons are way too much. Which is why modern militaries generally have small caliber carbines and magazine or belt fed small caliber SAWs at the squad level and keep only 2 MMGs at the platoon level as a support weapon where the range matters. Even larger caliber marksmen weapons tend not to be at the squad level except in exception circumstances like in the mountain fighting of Afghanistan. In Iraq combat was almost never more than 100m.
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/07/infantry-combat-ranges.html

As for the suomi not being up to par this pretty much correlates with all infantry combat experience in the last century (including my own training) so can't help you there if you do not believe me. When it comes to Terrain domination over ranges from 2-400m the LMG (preferably in a full power rifle cartridge) can't be beat. It's just a very obvious thing when you get out in the field and have to cover such a position.
Sure...which is a platoon weapon squad task, not a squad level MG mission for the most part. Or at least shouldn't be.
Chart from above link:
infantry+combat+ranges+graph.jpg


Its actually interesting to see how the US and USSR/russians have wobbled between what they want to use in the role for the past century. Neither intermediate or rifle is ideal so they've shifted back and forth. 30-40 years ago both were sorta settled on Intermediate with the Minimi and RPK as standard squad level weapons. Now things are shifting back to full rifle as those weapons are getting worn out.
Body armor and widespread optics use have changes the game. Arguably urban combat also has as well due to the design for cover overmatch. Which is why there is the development of 6.5-6.8mm weaponry, but generally in the context of using telescoping case ammo to get the weight well down to try and match 5.56mm ammo weights. Modern technology/developments are the major driver for the change. That and realizing that weapons designed for the cold war aren't really necessarily desireable in the 21st century.
 
Sure...which is a platoon weapon squad task, not a squad level MG mission for the most part. Or at least shouldn't be.

Experience shows that it nearly always ends up being though which is why they are bringing it back at the squad level. The MG weapons platoon is an akward beast and an akwards sollution to a problem that the regular infantry squad should be able to cover, we didn't even have MG platoons. Also the body armor argument Isn't the only reason by far as 15 years in afghanistan against very much unarmored enemies at 400m ranges shows that the full powered rifle cartridge still has an edge in that enviroment.

As for the pistol caliber MG I again imagine that they found it to be not up to snuff in that role and simply issuing DPs was a far better option for a unit that was already lacking in ranged firepower. Having experienced how hard it is to engage something out to 400m with a full powered rifle MG I do not believe for a second that a pistol caliber MG could do so and I'm of the opinion that any infantry unit should have that capability.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Experience shows that it nearly always ends up being though which is why they are bringing it back at the squad level. The MG weapons platoon is an akward beast and an akwards sollution to a problem that the regular infantry squad should be able to cover, we didn't even have MG platoons. Also the body armor argument Isn't the only reason by far as 15 years in afghanistan against very much unarmored enemies at 400m ranges shows that the full powered rifle cartridge still has an edge in that enviroment.

As for the pistol caliber MG I again imagine that they found it to be not up to snuff in that role and simply issuing DPs was a far better option for a unit that was already lacking in ranged firepower. Having experienced how hard it is to engage something out to 400m with a full powered rifle MG I do not believe for a second that a pistol caliber MG could do so.
Not MG weapons platoon at company level, but machine gun squad within the platoon, who use their range at the behest of the platoon leader.

Afghanistan is an aberration in terms of modern combat because engagements are often an ambush by one side who has a high ground position and uses their heaviest weapons to hit and then fade before the enemy can try and close or air support shows up. For patrols mortars can't really be carried and artillery has a hard time participating in due to the terrain. Plus the US has found that the 7.62 machine guns are too heavy to carry for many missions given the terrain, which means that other than refurbed marksman M14 it is even difficult to get the long range MGs even if the field where they are needed. But then how many wars are fought in the Himalayas?

WW2 armies of course didn't think of the SAW as a concept and it was like pulling teeth to even get the Germans the StG44 by the end of the war. Yet the assault rifle was the wave of the future and the armies of the period simply were largely stuck in the past in terms of what doctrine and technology was actually best for modern combat. So the historical lack of an issued belt fed pistol caliber weapon isn't so much proof it wasn't a good idea, rather that no one thought it up when it was possible and by the time it was viable it was looked over for the intermediate cartridge option...which then largely did not come about until after WW2.

As to your issues engaging targets out to 400m...that's the point; most combat happened at less than 300m where a pistol caliber round (9x25 or 7.62x25 preferrably) in a long barreled automatic weapon could actually be useful.
 
As to your issues engaging targets out to 400m...that's the point; most combat happened at less than 300m where a pistol caliber round (9x25 or 7.62x25 preferrably) in a long barreled automatic weapon could actually be useful.

Call it 100m. Pistol cartridge will not be effective beyond that, again, as I'm sure the russians found out.

And again. Sorry but modern european and Russian militaries disagree. Assault rifles on their own are not up to snuff and long range engagements happen often enough that not having squad level weapons that can reach at that range is a serious hamper. The 7.62 MG is a bitch to carry that much is true and I can attest to that but so is the heavy duty multi purpose AT weapon like the carl gustav and that is making a comeback as well. We recently traded the MG-3 for the minimi and less than a few years later we're looking to get a MAG variant back at the general squad level (because a lot of the old MG-3s date back as far as WWII complete with waffenamt on the bolts and the turkish MG-3s are crap), danes are doing the same and the french and brits did it a decade ago.

6.8 etc has been a meme for a decade now and has its share of drawbacks as well and I don't think this round of trials will produce anything new in a while just like the previous 5.
 
Last edited:
The Soviets did design such a weapon in WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAD_machine_gun
Frankly I think something like that could have been extremely useful in WW2, more so even in WW1 if the technology had been worked out.
But that then begs the question, why did they toss it in the trash and never revisit the idea in the next 70 years or so? The obvious answer being that it is far too finely specialised a tool. The advantage with having “too much gun” is that if you find yourself in a situation where there is an enemy position at 450m range, or behind light cover at 350m, or whatever, a LMG can still effectively engage it. Only having very light weapons mean that you have to call on supporting arms and hope for the best, or try to solve the tactical situation by retreating, charging or ignoring the enemy and praying. Particularly in a situation where the predominant weapon is SMGs or small-caliber carbines it is IMO essential to have a heavier weapon that can reach out a little further to maintain tactical flexibility. In modern usage we have seen that 5.56mm belt fed weapons can reach out well past 600 metres and still it is usually preferred to have 7.62mm available for barrier penetration and/or extended range work. In addition to light mortars etc to add further capability.
 
I do not advocate the bipod long sighted SMG instead of the LMG but merely that it can supplement or be a makeshift substitute where necessary. The SMG and LMG are a team. You would never use an SMG beyond 200 metres if you have an LMG to hand. Nor is an intermediate rifle a substitute either. The 7.62x25 is not hugely far from a 7.62x33 Kurz but will operate as a simple cheap blowback and has done. There is always the small infantry platoon mortar as an alternative with a well practiced user and this is neglected when speaking of the 200-700 metre zone. The French long had a love affair with the rifle grenade albeit to only 400 metres. Still, in WW1 on the Western Front, it all only affects the immediate trench action or mobile warfare after a breakthrough but cannot make a difference to entrenched MMGs in quantity nor artillery which define battlefield parameters.

Perhaps SMGs could play a history changing role on other fronts?
 

Deleted member 1487

Call it 100m. Pistol cartridge will not be effective beyond that, again, as I'm sure the russians found out.

And again. Sorry but modern european and Russian militaries disagree. Assault rifles on their own are not up to snuff and long range engagements happen often enough that not having squad level weapons that can reach at that range is a serious hamper. The 7.62 MG is a bitch to carry that much is true and I can attest to that but so is the heavy duty multi purpose AT weapon like the carl gustav and that is making a comeback as well. We recently traded the MG-3 for the minimi and less than a few years later we're looking to get a MAG variant back at the general squad level (because a lot of the old MG-3s date back as far as WWII complete with waffenamt on the bolts and the turkish MG-3s are crap), danes are doing the same and the french and brits did it a decade ago.

6.8 etc has been a meme for a decade now and has its share of drawbacks as well and I don't think this round of trials will produce anything new in a while just like the previous 5.
The PPSH41 manual told gunners how to aim out to 300m. The MP18 and MP40's effective range is listed as 200m both out of a 10 inch barrel.
I think you're misunderstanding the point of what modern armies are doing. Especially as they have only small caliber, high velocity rounds as the only squad weapon and retain only two MMGs in 7.62 at the platoon level. Of course in modern armies they have a lot of optics around which means they can actually use range out of their weapons in a way that armies prior to the 1980s simply could not. The switch to the SAW after Vietnam was due to the M60 (and it's replacement) being too heavy for squad use, hence the M249. Getting a MAG variant at squad level is probably not going to happen for most armies, as the US is really working hard to make the LSAT happen in 6.8mm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSAT_light_machine_gun
https://www.tactical-life.com/news/us-army-6-8mm-weapon-systems/
The above link shows they officially adopted the 6.8mm round in October of this year.

Which NATO armies will most likely then adopt. The CG is not really that practical as a weapon long term due to the impact it has on the user's body, despite it's combat utility. But in WW2 armies had the bazooka (or Panzerschreck...or PIAT).

Britain, Denmark, and Finland are probably only interested in pushing the big guns back down to the squad level due to their involvement in Afghanistan, which is a completely different animal to WW2 Europe. Since I'm proposing the 9-7.62x25mm SAW for a WW1 and/WW2 army, not a modern army fighting in Afghanistan, the needs and uses are different.

I do not advocate the bipod long sighted SMG instead of the LMG but merely that it can supplement or be a makeshift substitute where necessary. The SMG and LMG are a team. You would never use an SMG beyond 200 metres if you have an LMG to hand. Nor is an intermediate rifle a substitute either. The 7.62x25 is not hugely far from a 7.62x33 Kurz but will operate as a simple cheap blowback and has done. There is always the small infantry platoon mortar as an alternative with a well practiced user and this is neglected when speaking of the 200-700 metre zone. The French long had a love affair with the rifle grenade albeit to only 400 metres. Still, in WW1 on the Western Front, it all only affects the immediate trench action or mobile warfare after a breakthrough but cannot make a difference to entrenched MMGs in quantity nor artillery which define battlefield parameters.

Perhaps SMGs could play a history changing role on other fronts?
Right, I'm only suggesting it as a supplement for squad use, not a replacement for an LMG/MMG at the platoon level and above, just as the SAW is not replacing the long range full MG in a modern army. Though looking at the history of the RPD when in service, it did a pretty damn good job despite being relatively short ranged compared to a full powered round. Rifle grenades are like a light mortar minus the mortar itself and 400m range for the rifle squad is plenty for their objectives; in WW1 they learned the benefits of using rifle grenades to knock out MG positions suppressed by the Chauchat. Also BTW SMGs in WW2 proved themselves useful even in open field conditions due to being able to get close to an enemy before they received effective fire enough to suppress/eliminate them. In fact the Brits themselves in one study found that Sten gunners were more likely to actually hit their enemy than SMLE users and that the limited range tended not to be an issue in combat conditions due to the difficulty in actually spotting someone using cover and in drab colors beyond 200m or so. In the desert or in mountains perhaps, but in general field conditions especially with camo sighting without optics is very tough.
 
The PPSH41 manual told gunners how to aim out to 300m

I'm sure it did, most bolt action rifles also had sights out to 2000m and we got specifications how to engage out to around 800m with our HK416s even though hitting a simple stationary range target at 400m at known ranges was seen as something very hard. What it says is technically possible in the manual and what you can actually do never matches up and its painfully clear that you have little to no experience in this.
 
Trench raids tended to have specific goals in mind as well as keeping the enemy on their toes, generally speaking information gathering or specific sabotage.
For the British it was at least in part to keep up the soldiers fighting spirt and prevent an attitude of live and let live from setting in.
 
It makes no sense at all. It’s a waste of ammunition and reduces the chance of effective use of ammunition. Only people who have never served in the military believe this “massed spray-and-pray” nonsense. The British troops weren’t and never have been “poorly trained” by convenntional military thought of the time.

Surely bolt action rifles are easier to manufacture compared to newly designed SMGs? A Lee Enfield has far less parts compared to a MP18.

And only people in the military will willfully ignore operational research and pursue rifles that have ranges of 800m+ when combat is at 300m or less and combat evidence shows that the average soldier, when he even fires his weapon, can hardly hit anything until its right on top of him. That also assumes that the only effective use of a weapon is to hit the enemy, whereas operation research has shown that supressive fire is amazingly effective in slowing the enemy to a halt and automatic fire gives a morale boost to the majority of troops while in practice not causing the logistical problems that the 'experts' fear.

Maybe the SMLE has less parts than an MP18 or Thompson, but what about a sten or other simpler weapon?

You don't win the trench war by taking the front trenches or in raids. It is the ability of artillery to isolate the battlefield and the MMG to dominate the remainder of the battlefield that stalls the leapfrogging of units that should maintain the momentum and break through into a war of movement.

General Monash found that the Australian Corps suffered similar casualties in day to day patrolling, trench raids etc as they did when conducting an offensive using what he called 'peaceful penetration'. So in fact trench raids, simultaneously on a front wide enough that enemy artillery cannot turn and give enfilading fire (about 20-30km), is what won the war. However, this was after the Generals became aware that 'bite and hold' to a limited depth over a wide front was the way to win battles, rather than going for Berlin.

The SMG would be a useful trench tool no doubt but will not deal with the main issue. It needs to be allied to LMGs in the advance as a team and both need to be resupplied and fresh troops passed through.

Yes, I agree with all of that, the point being that SMGs would be more useful than bolt-action rifles in trench warfare. Following on from that, if one army was an early adopter then this greater usefulness will put them ahead on the tactical curve and lead to greater success.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm sure it did, most bolt action rifles also had sights out to 2000m and we got specifications how to engage out to around 800m with our HK416s even though hitting a simple stationary range target at 400m at known ranges was seen as something very hard. What it says is technically possible in the manual and what you can actually do never matches up and its painfully clear that you have little to no experience in this.
 
Top