Submachine Guns available in 1915

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

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
Sure: sighting targets, combat panic, targets taking cover, aiming errors, recoil, et.

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.
Not that that study says 'infantry hand weapon' which is about standard issue rifles, not automatic weapons. Operations Research from the Korean war noted that BARs and MMGs had much greater chances for a hit because of how much was being sent down range. Project SALVO was based on that.
Here is a better link of that report:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/000346.pdf
It should be noted too that recoil was a major factor in achieving hits, so less recoil made automatic fire more controllable vs. say the BAR. I'd be very interested in the comparison with SMGs at the ranges discussed in the section on automatic fire.

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.
The Bren had only 30 round magazines. It was able to suppress. Look into the Korean War, the 'Burp Gun' was highly effective at suppression.
http://www.koreanwaronline.com/arms/ppsh41.html

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.
The point wasn't to be firing them out of an SMG, but rather a somewhat heavier belt fed version with longer barrel and fixed stock like the LAD LMG. Because of how relatively light recoiling the rounds are compared to the weapon weight recoil was minimally felt.
BTW here is a demo of a .357 magnum round recoil in a carbine, which weighs only 8lbs, 7oz...which is less than an MP40:

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.
The point was that it could be done, especially when firing braced and prone in burst fire. In actual combat during WW2, most combat happened below 200m anyway, so max range isn't even that big of an issue, as a pistol caliber round, especially a magnum version, is going to be able to effectively reach out to normal effective combat ranges.
 

Deleted member 1487

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
Frankly I don't know why something like the C96 carbine couldn't have been made automatic and given a true box magazine and fixed stock/longer barrel. There were several weapons that could have been viable for conversion if it had been tried. Honestly even a level action carbine would have been workable for trench fighting. The question is would the US even be willing to license the Thompson when developed earlier? The Lewis Gun was use by the Entente before American entry due to the US not adopting it and Lewis moving to Belgium and later England to set up his company to make it.
 
Frankly I don't know why something like the C96 carbine couldn't have been made automatic and given a true box magazine and fixed stock/longer barrel. There were several weapons that could have been viable for conversion if it had been tried. Honestly even a level action carbine would have been workable for trench fighting. The question is would the US even be willing to license the Thompson when developed earlier? The Lewis Gun was use by the Entente before American entry due to the US not adopting it and Lewis moving to Belgium and later England to set up his company to make it.

Ref: C96 - it was arguably already in mass service and with the shoulder stock / holster and a 20 round mag even on Semi Auto it would probably serve well

The M1896 Kavallerie Karabiner had a fixed wodden stock and wooden forestock - give this a 20 round box - stripper fed and possible automatic feed and I think you have your trench carbine!

Ref: Thompson: Possibly? Depends on how it was developed.

If it was before April 1917 then I think that the US Gov is not getting in the way of fire arm production or anything racking in $$$ for an individual business!.

Alternatively it could be made by one of the US factorys making weapons for the Entente.

After all the Enfield P14 (along with the M1917 probably the finest mass produced military bolt action rifle ever produced*) was being made at 3 factories in the USA (Winchester, Remington and Eddystone) for the British army and over 1 million were made and over 2 million of the subsequant M1917 (a .30-06 development of the P14)

Have one of these - say Eddystone retool and start mass producing them in 1917-18 - they ended up making 1 million M1917s from 1917 - lets say they instead make 1 million Annialators from 1916 - that should be more than enoguh to ensure 1 gun per section/squad in the Entente Armies.

Back to your OP


So how would this change developments in firearms tactics?

Well the British had introduced a 4 Section Platoon by 1918 with 2 sections being MG sections with a Lewis gun and the other 2 being grenade/rifle sections or bombers

I could see the Lewis guns being a smaller MG Section of 2 gun teams - with 3 remain sections being SMG/Rifle/Grenade Sections - giving greater flexability in the assault

As more Lewis guns come available I can see the 4 sections evolving in to 'universal' sections with an MG team of 3 led by the 2IC with a Lewis and 2 rifles, Rifle team of 5 armed with rifles and grenades led by the Section Commander with an SMG and a Scout team of 2 with 1 SMG and a rifle or possibly 2 SMGs.

I would think that having sufficient SMGs enough for 1 or more per section might very well drive individual and small fire team / firepower derived tactics that the USMC were developing between the wars and everyone evolved into late WW2 with the desire for a SMG but with greater range evolving into an Assault rifle earlier than it did.



*If I was ever going to own a bolt action rifle it would be a M1917 Enfield Eddystone
 
Sure: sighting targets, combat panic, targets taking cover, aiming errors, recoil, et.

right, but since that is the situation that you'll firing this in, worrying about 300 yard ranges is not relevant

Not that that study says 'infantry hand weapon' which is about standard issue rifles, not automatic weapons.

No they were talking about automatic weapons as well,


Operations Research from the Korean war noted that BARs and MMGs had much greater chances for a hit because of how much was being sent down range. Project SALVO was based on that.
Here is a better link of that report:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/000346.pdf
It should be noted too that recoil was a major factor in achieving hits, so less recoil made automatic fire more controllable vs. say the BAR. I'd be very interested in the comparison with SMGs at the ranges discussed in the section on automatic fire.


Project SLAVO came to the same conclusion that FA fire wasn't getting more hits than controlled SA fire IIRC?

The BAR is actually reasonably controllable but then it weighs up to 19lb empty depending on the type

The Bren had only 30 round magazines. It was able to suppress. Look into the Korean War, the 'Burp Gun' was highly effective at suppression.
http://www.koreanwaronline.com/arms/ppsh41.html
http://www.koreanwaronline.com/arms/ppsh41.html


The PPsh was able to suppress when used en-masse and at (very) short range. That limits it effectiveness especially for your proposed long range version. The Bren could suppress because it had a reasonably heavy and durable barrel but it's inherently limited in doing so by being magazine fed (this is not a particular failing of the Bren). A belt fed (and ideally emplaced and crewed) MMG is way better.

The point wasn't to be firing them out of an SMG, but rather a somewhat heavier belt fed version with longer barrel and fixed stock like the LAD LMG. Because of how relatively light recoiling the rounds are compared to the weapon weight recoil was minimally felt.

Right but you are getting all the down sides of a LMG (Weight, bulk), and all the down sides of Pistol calibre (low range, slow speed, less power). Guns are always a compromise, you can't really get away from that. The LAD fores these from a tripod and set position


BTW here is a demo of a .357 magnum round recoil in a carbine, which weighs only 8lbs, 7oz...which is less than an MP40:

That's a short barrel rifle with wooden stock, tight cheek weld and set stance, you fancy running around doing that, more relevantly it's lever action SA fire not FA?


The point was that it could be done,

No that's the point. 'That it can be done', doesn't mean it can be done reliably combat, and since that is the only criteria that matters what can be done in perfect conditions on a range is irrelevant

especially when firing braced and prone in burst fire. In actual combat during WW2, most combat happened below 200m anyway, so max range isn't even that big of an issue, as a pistol caliber round, especially a magnum version, is going to be able to effectively reach out to normal effective combat ranges.

Right so no need for 300m smg even if you could make one. The thing is you are arguing against history here, Armies of WW2 that used SMG still went for longer range weapons while trying to keep the advantages of SMG (so ended up with intermediate necked rounds and ARs.). Its not like SMG are unknown thing to them SMGs have advantages if they could have got what they were looking for and kept the SMG advantages they would have.

also gun you can only fire effectively braced and prone is a gun that inherently limits you on the battlefield

Ultimately you are trying to reinvent the AR and call it a SMG. I get the the things you going for, but you will end up with an AR and if you go with short straight fat pistol rounds you end up with short range crap AR. The AR is itself a compromise (see later debate on that) so you are going to compromise on a compromise.
 

Deleted member 1487

right, but since that is the situation that you'll firing this in, worrying about 300 yard ranges is not relevant
It can be in certain circumstances. Which is why the LAD was designed to be able to cover the full range of infantry combat, even the less frequent part, to ensure SMG platoons weren't left without a means to reply to fire taken at that range.

No they were talking about automatic weapons as well,
Yes, but they don't list which ones specifically.

Project SLAVO came to the same conclusion that FA fire wasn't getting more hits than controlled SA fire IIRC?
They concluded their plan for a pattern dispersed flechette round wasn't feasible and aiming errors negated the spread of the multi-shot cartridge. Basically it was making the standard infantry rifle into a flechette shotgun, but the round never performed as well as theoretically it should have. FA fire wasn't the solution they were after or testing, but was found to be somewhat better than the pattern dispersion solution. Another study in a link that Riain posted earlier found that FA fire from a controllable weapon (SMG) was more effective than single shot out to 50m.

The BAR is actually reasonably controllable but then it weighs up to 19lb empty depending on the type
But that was one of the weapons likely tested by Hitchman...

The PPsh was able to suppress when used en-masse and at (very) short range. That limits it effectiveness especially for your proposed long range version. The Bren could suppress because it had a reasonably heavy and durable barrel but it's inherently limited in doing so by being magazine fed (this is not a particular failing of the Bren). A belt fed (and ideally emplaced and crewed) MMG is way better.
Not even en masse or at very short range. They were often used at 100-150m. En masse they were utterly smothering. But then I'm not proposing the PPSH as the weapon here, rather a long barreled, belt fed, quick change barrel weapon for sustained fire at longer ranges than the typical SMG. The extra velocity gained by having the longer barrel would enable that additional range compared to short barreled SMG. The heavy, durable, changeable barrel variant is what I'm talking about, something like the LAD. In fact given the much reduced powder load the LAD would heat up FAR less quickly than the Bren.

Right but you are getting all the down sides of a LMG (Weight, bulk), and all the down sides of Pistol calibre (low range, slow speed, less power). Guns are always a compromise, you can't really get away from that. The LAD fores these from a tripod and set position
5.6kg isn't really that bulky and in not that much heavier than an STG44. The advantages of the pistol caliber is that it is extremely light weight (total cartridge weight is 1/4 that of a full sized rifle round), slow to heat up the weapon, an very controllable in automatic fire from a less heavy weapon; the lack of recoil if anything would make it dead on accuracy and very easy to fire on the move by one man, who could carry hundreds of rounds of ammo in addition to the weapon, very unlike a 'real' LMG. The Tokarev round was deadly out to 300m, especially with several coming in. Fired from a longer barreled weapon it gained in velocity and therefore accuracy and range.

That's a short barrel rifle with wooden stock, tight cheek weld and set stance, you fancy running around doing that, more relevantly it's lever action SA fire not FA?
The point was the recoil was highly controllable. With a heavier weapon it would have been even less. I hate to break it to you, but the M16 required the same stance on full auto while standing, but was fine for troops running around. A belt fed weapon is mostly going to fire from prone or at least kneeling, but even a weapon like the PK machine gun, which has much heavier recoil and is a heavier weapon overall, can be fired from the shoulder by a relatively small guy (Ian from Forgotten Weapons demo-ed that).

No that's the point. 'That it can be done', doesn't mean it can be done reliably combat, and since that is the only criteria that matters what can be done in perfect conditions on a range is irrelevant
Single aimed shots while standing isn't really something that happens all that often, more like prone firing, which is even easier to brace from and can be done in combat safely. Thing is in combat it's not one man firing either, it's the entire unit saturating a position or general area with fire (or in the case of a belt fed automatic weapon projecting a cone of fire in bursts at a target), so trying to do longer range tougher shots is easier given the volume of fire being laid down. Plus with such light ammo you're going to be carrying a lot more of it, so you can have a lot more changes to hit.

Right so no need for 300m smg even if you could make one. The thing is you are arguing against history here, Armies of WW2 that used SMG still went for longer range weapons while trying to keep the advantages of SMG (so ended up with intermediate necked rounds and ARs.). Its not like SMG are unknown thing to them SMGs have advantages if they could have got what they were looking for and kept the SMG advantages they would have.
,
also gun you can only fire effectively braced and prone is a gun that inherently limits you on the battlefield

Ultimately you are trying to reinvent the AR and call it a SMG. I get the the things you going for, but you will end up with an AR and if you go with short straight fat pistol rounds you end up with short range crap AR. The AR is itself a compromise (see later debate on that) so you are going to compromise on a compromise.
I'm not proposing a 300m SMG, rather a 300m LMG/SAW that is belt fed, heavier, with a longer changeable barrel (or at least a heavy one that doesn't heat up as quickly). The armies in WW2 did try to field an intermediate rifle round and mostly ended up not fielding it in WW2, instead only in the 1950s. The exception was Germany and they suffered from waiting too long to be able to phase in the ammo production on the scale they needed. The Soviets didn't adopt the LAD because they tried to field the RPD, which in the end only ended up in widespread service in the 1950s. So they missed out on a good weapon because they were waiting for their prefect option.
Also the LAD or a similar type weapon wasn't something that could only be fired prone; most belt feds were more accurate at longer ranges when prone or braced, not standing up, which is generally a much safer position in combat so you don't get lit up. If you think what I'm proposing is an assault rifle, you're missing the entire point of a SAW.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
The Bren was magazine fed, but with rapid change gun it could sustain a rate of fire of four magazines per minute, every minute and that is a lot of suppression.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Bren was magazine fed, but with rapid change gun it could sustain a rate of fire of four magazines per minute, every minute and that is a lot of suppression.
I doubt they were firing that much given the limited number of mags they carried.
 
The Bren was magazine fed, but with rapid change gun it could sustain a rate of fire of four magazines per minute, every minute and that is a lot of suppression.

with 30 round magazines is 120 round per minute, not sure I'd call that a lot

I doubt they were firing that much given the limited number of mags they carried.

Which is kind of the issue. I see where you going aha but you can carry lots of 7.62 tokarev or what have and yeah yeah you can. But you lose out in other ways. Basically you seem to be looking for a wonder gun that can assault and suppress at range, fire and dash, carry lots of rounds and be light and controllable, but without your barrel warping on continuous FA. But as I said guns are a compromise.
 
Last edited:

Ramontxo

Donor
The Bren was even provided with a tripod for its use in suppresive fire. And its rather 112 rounds as the magazine was never fully loaded, the rimed cartrigde... And 112 sustained is more than enough for suppression.
 
The Bren was even provided with a tripod for its use in suppresive fire. And its rather 112 rounds as the magazine was never fully loaded, the rimed cartrigde... And 112 sustained is more than enough for suppression.


you talking about this

7a616daa03b593f508d7579244c4d392.jpg



with 100 rnd pan
 
Yes though the 100 rounds pan was for AA uses.


Don't get me wrong I love the Bren, very accurate, robust all good, but to me Suppressive fire is long belts of ammunition... or several guns with magazines. that to me looks like trying to make a LMG into a HMG.

Don't get me wrong sometimes you have to, and it not like those two could have carried vickers with all the sundries around as easily, or do some of the things with a Vickes that they could with a Bren.

Also didn't know they had larger pans that the AA one, anyway how heavy is a 112 .303 pan?
 
Last edited:
I doubt they were firing that much given the limited number of mags they carried.

The assistant would carry 12 magazines in a magazine case

20150806120944-4130.jpg


The rest of the Squad usually the Section Corporal and 6 riflemen could each carry upto 4 magazines in their 2 chest pouches - but probably 2 each for 12 odd spares among the section so that's 24 magazines.

attachment.php


As the Bren gun team exhausts the magazines the 2IC who commanded the gun would swap empties from the gun team with the full mags from the rifle team who would in any given lull refill them using the ammunition from their bandoliers.

So 6 odd men could probably fill a magazine each inside of a minute - which means that so long as the section has ammo or access to ammo they can keep the gun in action.
 
Last edited:
The assistant would carry 12 magazines in a magazine case

20150806120944-4130.jpg


The rest of the Squad usually the Section Corporal and 6 riflemen could each carry upto 4 magazines in their 2 chest pouches - but probably 2 each for 12 odd spares among the section so that's 24 magazines.

attachment.php


As the Bren gun team exhausts the magazines the 2IC who commanded the gun would swap empties from the gun team with the full mags from the rifle team who would in any given lull refill them using the ammunition from their bandoliers.

So 6 odd men could probably fill a magazine each inside of a minute - which means that so long as the section has ammo or access to ammo they can keep the gun in action.

I would add that the 100 round pan was a bugger to carry, as with all drum mags a bugger to reload and was only used in the AA role where the gun was in a static position or mounted on an AFV.
 

Deleted member 1487

The assistant would carry 12 magazines in a magazine case

20150806120944-4130.jpg


The rest of the Squad usually the Section Corporal and 6 riflemen could each carry upto 4 magazines in their 2 chest pouches - but probably 2 each for 12 odd spares among the section so that's 24 magazines.

attachment.php


As the Bren gun team exhausts the magazines the 2IC who commanded the gun would swap empties from the gun team with the full mags from the rifle team who would in any given lull refill them using the ammunition from their bandoliers.

So 6 odd men could probably fill a magazine each inside of a minute - which means that so long as the section has ammo or access to ammo they can keep the gun in action.
Given that usually they don't suggest filling magazines to the brim due to spring wear issues at best 12 magazines is about 300 rounds. MG34/42's using belts usually had well over 1000 rounds distributed over the squad.
 
Given that usually they don't suggest filling magazines to the brim due to spring wear issues at best 12 magazines is about 300 rounds. MG34/42's using belts usually had well over 1000 rounds distributed over the squad.

Well that's at least 672 rounds ready to go then across 24 magazines! Plus refills. which is the same as having over 1000 rounds distributed over the squad.

If that's not enough - then you are having a bad day at the office.
 

Deleted member 1487

Well that's at least 672 rounds ready to go then across 24 magazines! Plus refills. which is the same as having over 1000 rounds distributed over the squad.

If that's not enough - then you are having a bad day at the office.
What is the weight of the empty mags, plus the boxes? I'd imagine the British squadies distributed Bren mags among themselves to spread out the load too
 
What is the weight of the empty mags, plus the boxes? I'd imagine the British squadies distributed Bren mags among themselves to spread out the load too

No idea of the weight? They were designed to be robust and virtually indestructible so they are not going to be light tinny things like the BAR mags or the MP40/Sten mags

The assistant to the gunner would carry a box of 12 magazines (I have also seen extra large pouches capable of holding 3 mags each with the assistant having 2 those as well as the standard pouches instead of the box which must have made it easier to carry and quieter I imagine?) - with every man in the Section capable of carry upto 4 magazines in the 2 chest pouches - in reality probably less - but potentially upto 40 mags among the full strength section + the box.

My understanding is that the 6 'riflemen' carried 2 spares each with the capacity to take 2 empties each if need be (and filled as and when the opportunity arose) as they were used up - but the 2 NCOs and the Gunner himself could also carry spares

It was a good robust system and of course I would imagine that if heavy contact was expected then additional boxes could be carried but I am not sure how many magazines were available on average per gun etc.

Also while the wartime section was 10 men it would often in practice be 8 (the minimum effective size being 6) as men are detailed for other tasks at Platoon, Company and Battalion or become casualties etc so I think my earlier total of 24 magazines is probably about right.

When a replacement/s arrived in a section the first thing they would do is make sure he knew how to run the Bren gun as the sections primary fire power was based on it.
 
Simple to build and operate?
Suppression?
Pan magazine?
made for close in fighting?

Let 'Gun Jesus' explain

Nothing here that couldn't be done in 1900

And if .22 Long Rifle doesn't appeal, at the turn of the Century, there was .22 Extra Long Rimfire
301px-.22_Extra_Long%2C_with_.22_Long_Rifle_for_comparison..JPG
 
Top