Submachine Guns available in 1915

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 94680

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?

Fair points, but suppressive fire works best at “range” to allow your men to move on the enemy. Probably outside of the useful range of SMGs firing pistol rounds. By that range, you want to be hitting and killing the enemy. A rifle with a range of 800m will hit and kill at 300m, they aren’t mutually exclusive. Whereas if your maximum range is 300m, you’re out of luck if the enemy is, say, 400m away. Accurate to 800m (admittedly - and I totally agree - in the hands of well trained, settled and importantly good troops) mean it’s got a good chance of scoring hits at 300m. I know what I’d prefer in my hands if I was moving across hundreds of metres of contested ground. I’m also pretty sure we’ve disproved the “generals hated auto weapons due to waste” trope on this site previously, but I may be wrong.

A sten may be simpler than a MP18, but I’ll still confidently wager it has less parts than a bolt action mag fed rifle like the SMLE.

Edit: I stand corrected! After a brief search online, I found a reference for a SMLE (4 Mk1?) at 128 parts and a sten at 50 parts.
 

Deleted member 1487

Fair points, but suppressive fire works best at “range” to allow your men to move on the enemy. Probably outside of the useful range of SMGs firing pistol rounds. By that range, you want to be hitting and killing the enemy. A rifle with a range of 800m will hit and kill at 300m, they aren’t mutually exclusive. Whereas if your maximum range is 300m, you’re out of luck if the enemy is, say, 400m away. Accurate to 800m (admittedly - and I totally agree - in the hands of well trained, settled and importantly good troops) mean it’s got a good chance of scoring hits at 300m. I know what I’d prefer in my hands if I was moving across hundreds of metres of contested ground. I’m also pretty sure we’ve disproved the “generals hated auto weapons due to waste” trope on this site previously, but I may be wrong.

A sten may be simpler than a MP18, but I’ll still confidently wager it has less parts than a bolt action mag fed rifle like the SMLE.
10 inch barrel versions sure. 18-20 inch barrels with a more powerful version like the 9x25 would be a different story:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/05/chris-dumm/lever-action-ballistics-30-30-vs-357-magnum/
The .357’s handgun ballistics are impressive indeed, but how much more impressive does it get from an extra fourteen inches of barrel?

It won’t be a surprise that an 18″ carbine delivers substantially higher velocities than a 4″ revolver firing the same cartridge. How substantial?
  • With 125-grain handloads, the revolver averaged an even 1300 feet per second and 469 pound-feet of energy, while the carbine delivered 1937 fps and 1041 lb-ft. That’s a 49 percent velocity increase and a 122 percent increase in energy from the same cartridge. Yowza.
With the loads we tested, the extra barrel length of the .357 carbine paid handsome dividends. With light loads, it boosted a truly anemic .38 Special cowboy load up to +P velocities, and it gave the .38 Special +P equivalent load a 20 percent velocity increase. Unique is a fast-burning powder; this light load was nearly consumed in the 4″ revolver barrel so there was only a modest gain from the carbine.

With higher-performance loads, the .357 carbine almost delivers real rifleballistics. The 125-grain loads have not quite as much muzzle energy as NATO’s standard infantry rifle round, the 5.56x45mm. The 158-grain .357 JSP produces less energy, but it might be a better cartridge for medium-sized game at modest ranges because the bullet itself is less prone to fragmenting at these velocities.

Conclusions:

The .357 Magnum basically doubles its kinetic energy when it’s fired from a carbine, and it almost earns a promotion to the Big Leagues of rifle ballistics. But not quite. The result is substantially more powerful than a .30 Carbine

As to the utility of say the M1 Garand, a weapon possibly accurate out to 1000m, was arguably less useful than a variety of SMGs used by the Chinese in the Korean War:
http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/t...mentary_on_infantry_weapons_korea_1950_51.pdf
At 300m single aimed shots were getting negligible hits. Most hits were actually happening at 100m or less. At 200m if you're getting SMG hits with burst fire you're already ahead of the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 1487

That’s a long barrel for a SMG though isn’t it? Sten was 7 inches, even the Beretta 1918 was ‘only’ 12 inches.
The MP40 were about 10 inches. The MP18 was about 8. The Uzi is over 10. So getting up to 18-20 inches with magnum type pistol rounds (and slower burning powder) can yield pretty huge performance increases and getting range out to the normal effective combat ranges. Being able to fire in automatic to saturate an area improved hit percentages pretty seriously, as was the case with the BAR or any belt fed MG compared to a semi-automatic rifle firing the same cartridge. Plus the longer barrels help increase sight radius, which would also help accuracy.
 
I'm sure it did, most bolt action rifles also had sights out to 2000m
To be fair in WW1 this was to perform the task that was being taken on by the MMG. That of creating a beaten zone at an extended distance to deny ground or engage an area target (e.g field gun position). It had a purpose when they were first put on. They later fell into disuse as the MMG took on the role, crew served from the tripod.
 

Deleted member 94680

The MP40 were about 10 inches. The MP18 was about 8. The Uzi is over 10. So getting up to 18-20 inches with magnum type pistol rounds (and slower burning powder) can yield pretty huge performance increases and getting range out to the normal effective combat ranges. Being able to fire in automatic to saturate an area improved hit percentages pretty seriously, as was the case with the BAR or any belt fed MG compared to a semi-automatic rifle firing the same cartridge. Plus the longer barrels help increase sight radius, which would also help accuracy.

All fair enough but you’re designing a weapon to fit these characteristics you’ve pulled from the net. An 18” barrelled weapon in .357” isn’t a SMG, or at least what any of us would recognise as an SMG. It’s more of an assault rifle, although the recoil would be hellish on auto I’d imagine.
 
Fair points, but suppressive fire works best at “range” to allow your men to move on the enemy. Probably outside of the useful range of SMGs firing pistol rounds. By that range, you want to be hitting and killing the enemy. A rifle with a range of 800m will hit and kill at 300m, they aren’t mutually exclusive. Whereas if your maximum range is 300m, you’re out of luck if the enemy is, say, 400m away. Accurate to 800m (admittedly - and I totally agree - in the hands of well trained, settled and importantly good troops) mean it’s got a good chance of scoring hits at 300m. I know what I’d prefer in my hands if I was moving across hundreds of metres of contested ground. I’m also pretty sure we’ve disproved the “generals hated auto weapons due to waste” trope on this site previously, but I may be wrong.

A sten may be simpler than a MP18, but I’ll still confidently wager it has less parts than a bolt action mag fed rifle like the SMLE.

Edit: I stand corrected! After a brief search online, I found a reference for a SMLE (4 Mk1?) at 128 parts and a sten at 50 parts.

In the link I posted earlier http://www.testofbattle.com/upload/bob/Rules of Infantry Combat.htm#6a soldier error and standard combat ranges make the 800m range theoretic at best, and harmful by giving troops unsuitable weapons at worst. Given the trenches were 30-250m apart, were zig-zagged to avoid long sight-lines and had all sorts of obstacles/cover in no mans land I'd prefer the ability to lay down a burst of fire than an accurate slow-firing rifle.
 

Deleted member 1487

All fair enough but you’re designing a weapon to fit these characteristics you’ve pulled from the net. An 18” barrelled weapon in .357” isn’t a SMG, or at least what any of us would recognise as an SMG. It’s more of an assault rifle, although the recoil would be hellish on auto I’d imagine.
Not bad recoil really, supposedly lighter than the 7.92 Kurz. The reason I'm citing 18 inch barrels in this case is because that is what the LAD MG used and why a pistol caliber cartridge could actually effectively reach out to 300m as the LAD is supposed to have done with the 7.62 Tokarev.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAD_machine_gun
http://www.kalashnikov.ru/medialibrary/2e5/ne-vpisavshisya.pdf
 
We do know that 9x25mm was used in the blowback MP34 and the 7.62x25mm Soviet SMGs in the normal manner of SMGs and the CZ383 was designed as an SMG support weapon with a bipod and extended sights to 800 metres with a quick remove 13", barrel albeit in 9x18mm.
 

Deleted member 94680

In the link I posted earlier http://www.testofbattle.com/upload/bob/Rules of Infantry Combat.htm#6a soldier error and standard combat ranges make the 800m range theoretic at best, and harmful by giving troops unsuitable weapons at worst. Given the trenches were 30-250m apart, were zig-zagged to avoid long sight-lines and had all sorts of obstacles/cover in no mans land I'd prefer the ability to lay down a burst of fire than an accurate slow-firing rifle.

How are they unsuitable? Again, if it can reach to 800m (agreed, theoretically - although it’s more practically but unlikely) it can shoot shorter as well.
 

Deleted member 1487

We do know that 9x25mm was used in the blowback MP34 and the 7.62x25mm Soviet SMGs in the normal manner of SMGs and the CZ383 was designed as an SMG support weapon with a bipod and extended sights to 800 metres with a quick remove 13", barrel albeit in 9x18mm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_MKMO
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/submachine-guns/danuvia-39m/
The Danuvia 39M (named for the factory where it was manufactured) was not really an outstanding gun in any particular way, but it was a solid, reliable, and well-liked weapons for Hungary during the second world war. The complexity of the lever-delayed system over a typical blowback bolt was justified by the chambering of 9x25mm Mauser Export in the 39M, which was significantly more potent of a cartridge than the other subguns of the day. It fired a 126gr bullet at just under 1500fps, giving it a muzzle energy more than 50% greater than the 9mm Parabellum.
 
It fired a 126gr bullet at just under 1500fps, giving it a muzzle energy more than 50% greater than the 9mm Parabellum.

and flatter trajectory, reducing range estimation errors

I've fired a Tommy gun at 200Y, and it was Minute of Deer, but it had the ladder sight and took time to tweak in. Faster 9mm would be much easier than 45acp, 9mm++ makes it even easier
 
How are they unsuitable? Again, if it can reach to 800m (agreed, theoretically - although it’s more practically but unlikely) it can shoot shorter as well.

Not as suitable (not unsuitable, we're talking in relative not absolute terms) in close quarter battle, in trenches and no mans land reaction time and rate of fire count far more than medium-long range accuracy. The SMG also has less tangible benefits such as the ability of automatic fire to raise morale and embolden troops.

bfyPIV8.jpg

wwi.jpg


Not a lot of scope for non-snipers to use the range and accuracy of bolt-action rifles.
 


All that really has nothing to do with shooting in combat.

There is a huge difference between theoretical maximum range, maximum range ever achieved in any set up and effective range in the situation you are in.
 
10 inch barrel versions sure. 18-20 inch barrels with a more powerful version like the 9x25 would be a different story:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/05/chris-dumm/lever-action-ballistics-30-30-vs-357-magnum/


Right but a 20" barrel firing .30-30 isnt rellay anyone idea of a SMG? In fcat its a FA version of a M1A1. Also Fully auto on that isn't going to be great, (although I know FA M1A1 conversion existed)

As to the utility of say the M1 Garand, a weapon possibly accurate out to 1000m, was arguably less useful than a variety of SMGs used by the Chinese in the Korean War:
http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/t...mentary_on_infantry_weapons_korea_1950_51.pdf
At 300m single aimed shots were getting negligible hits. Most hits were actually happening at 100m or less. At 200m if you're getting SMG hits with burst fire you're already ahead of the game.

Right but there a reason why those hits were being got at 100m or less, and it not that the bullets could physically reach further

The MP40 were about 10 inches. The MP18 was about 8. The Uzi is over 10. So getting up to 18-20 inches with magnum type pistol rounds (and slower burning powder) can yield pretty huge performance increases and getting range out to the normal effective combat ranges. Being able to fire in automatic to saturate an area improved hit percentages pretty seriously, as was the case with the BAR or any belt fed MG compared to a semi-automatic rifle firing the same cartridge. Plus the longer barrels help increase sight radius, which would also help accuracy.

Actually FA isn't that great at increasing chances of hitting when shooting at specific targets:

Operational-Requrements For An Infantry Hand Weapon 1952 (PDF of old docs warning)

Pg21 is the section discussing Fully automatic fire but the relevant quote is I think:

"never did more than one round hit the target (100yds) or screen from any of the short bursts,...to obtain more than one strike on the six ft by six ft screen the range had to be closed to 50 yd. At this range it was noted that the man-silhouette target in front of the screen was not hit more than once from any burst. Since single round firing with the M-1 rifle at 50 yds yields a probability of hit of near unity, the effectiveness of automatic fire at such short ranges was of no interest"

Pg 22 basically lays it all out you get more than one round hitting at very close ranges, and regular SA fire is just as accurate in terms of hitting the target

There is a lot more (conclusions on Pg 40, and appendixes that have the results tabulated etc), but I can't get this to copy and paste.

Now suppressive fire and the benefits it gives is a different thing, but you are not going to be doing effective suppressive fire with 20-30 round SMGs.


Also when firing FA Magnum rounds out of a weapon the size and weight of an SMG, sight radius benefits of longer barrels are really not going to be your primary factor.
 
Last edited:
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 think the best answer would be for the Thompson SMG to be developed earlier

Perhaps Thompson abandons the Blish Lock mechanism earlier and develops the gun as a pure ‘blow back’ type operation and the ‘Annihilator MK1’ is ready for trials in 1916?

Then the British already licence building the American Designed Lewis gun gets hold of the weapon for trials at the front line where they likes the trench broom a lot.

Ultimately they buy the licence and start making it in .455 Webley/or buy from the USA in .45 and by late 1918 it is produced in enough numbers to equip one man in every Section of 10 men

Perhaps one of the P14 rifle factories gets modified to build this instead of that rifle?

And then when the USA enters the war they expand the factory’s to enable the Doughboys to be equipped with the Enfield m1917 rifle and ‘Eddystone’ Thompson M1917
 
Ultimately they buy the licence and start making it in .455 Webley/or buy from the USA in .45 and by late 1918 it is produced in enough numbers to equip one man in every Section of 10 men

Not .455 Webley a fully rimmed revolver round won't work well. .455 Webley Auto would probably work though. It's a semi rimmed round but if they got the magazine right it should be fine.

 
Not .455 Webley a fully rimmed revolver round won't work well. .455 Webley Auto would probably work though. It's a semi rimmed round but if they got the magazine right it should be fine.\
rimmed rounds can work fine from magazines. See the Bren.
 
Top