Why did they have a magazine fed semi auto in 1893 but no submachine gun?
>>64475852balance
>>64475852combat doctrine, same reason they kept bolt actions for way too long
>>64475852Officers are smart and can be trusted with a rapid fire weapon because we're superior people.Enl*sted are retarded babies who shouldn't even get guns really, they can't be trusted not to immediately piss all their ammo into the wind on first contact.t. officer
>>64475852typically, for a tool to be invented or applied in a particular way, somebody needs to think "hmm, I wish I had a tool that could do this". It just so happens that until the first major conflict that magazine fed, self-loading pistols were common in, practically nobody was in a situation where they thought something of that kind would be useful. This also goes for early "assault rifles", as such things were developed before the tactical niche that they would fill was realised during WWII, and also often with another purpose in mind (such as the Lewis Storm Rifle being tied to the walking fire concept). On a more immediate scale, metallurgy and manufacturing was not in a state at the time that reliable and interchangeable magazines were truly feasible. Even during WWII, the magazine was recognised as a logistical and mechanical sticking point. They introduce another major point of failure into a weapon due to wear or tolerance issues, and then also need to be produced, distributed, and matched to weapons. At the turn of the century, aside from private, personal weapons or limited issue specialty weapons, this just isn't something worth doing yet. Not to mention that the Maxim gun was still a very new technology, the idea of a machine gun was cutting edge, scaling an operation like that down to a practically reliable man-portable package was something greater than cutting edge and I doubt few thought about it and fewer still I likely thought it was realistic. Overall, it's just before its time.
>>64475852because up until mass trench warfare, most close combat shit was settled with either a bayonet, a saber or a pistol, because these combat situations almost always involved 1v1 fights, your average grunt didn't need to fight off 5-6 opponents close range.
>>64475852Magazines were too expensive to make for general issue.
>>64475904it could be argued that police actually needed a SMG/PDW/PCC, but it think it was mostly a case of just being too early
>>64475852No one realized how useful a portable machinegun could be until late in WWI and even then no one really understood the full extent to that usefulness until after WWII. Remember recoil-powered machine guns had only existed for about ten years at that point and semi auto pistols for only two, designers were still trying to figure out what was the best design was for semi-auto pistol let alone figure out how to make them fire continuously
>>64475854>>64475892>>64475903>>64475904But gatling gun had already been disrupting the battlefields for 30 years.
>>64475917The officer caste only barely tolerated machineguns because of their extreme effectiveness, and the fact that as crew served backline weapons they would still be under their supervision. SMGs and other portable automatic weapons would give soldiers FAR too much independence for the CO's liking.
>>64475917which by the era of modern self loading pistols, was extremely obsoleteeven a bolt actions btfo the gatling gun, so theres quite literally no reason to include it in this discussion
>>64475927>even a bolt actions btfo the gatling gunReally? When gatling guns were used, soldiers had henrys and winchesters and rolling block rifles already.
>>64475960higher volume of fire to size & size of cartridge, mobility tooplus, by 1895 imagerelated was around, among a few others
>>64475914>No one realized how useful a portable machinegun could be until late in WWIEven the US Army had a LMG with a prismatic magnified optic before WW1.
>>64475960You are referring to lever action rifles, which for military is nothing close to a bolt action rifle
>>64475984Real talk, why do US army LMGs have such a history of being mediocre? I don't think there has ever been a great LMG designed in the US. Don't @ me with the BAR, it was fine for it's time but it's no LMG
>>64476008US Army procurement has a history of focusing on accuracy on the firing range over all other metrics when making decisions, in no small part because it's the easiest thing to objectively measure.
>>64476008>I don't think there has ever been a great LMG designed in the US
>>64476014It's funny you bring up the Lewis gun, because Lewis was so frustrated with the US army that left for Belgium and eventually started production in England. A perfect example for the point I'm trying to make: The US army hates great LMGs.
>>64475852Because infantry combat was imagined as rifles salvo exchange from 1000-2000 meters range and SMG had no use in such meta. WWI caught everyone pants down (Towards a "600 m" lightweight General Purpose Cartridge, v2019, Full Paper)Better question why do military clutched their bolt action rifles after WWI experience.
>>64476116>why do military clutched their bolt action rifles after WWI experienceI don't understand your question Semi auto rifles were in development
>>64475853fpbp
>>64475852Automatic infantry weapons were considered too expensive prior to WW1. It was assumed infantry would just spray bullets all over the place which would be uneconomical.
>>64476165>I don't understand your question There were no use for rifle cartridges able to reach 2000 meters, regarding personal infantry weapons.WWI meta was run across no man's land as fast as you can (not very fast because it's mud sludge and artillery craters) and fighting and shooting starts in enemy trenches. Because every second you overstay on open ground means more casualties from artillery salvos and there is nothing that can be really done about artillery.In that meta optimal personal weapon is SMG.
>>64475852Magazines for self-loading weapons were expensive, difficult to design and manufacture and shoddy and the weapons had similar problems as well. Yeah Borchardts and Mausers and Lugers were sexy as all hell but repairing one is very much a job for a gunsmith and not an armorer and always has been.
>>64476116>>64476192Because they had several million of them lying around after the war. Defence spending was also pretty unpopular for most the interwar period. When rearmament began new infantry weapons weren’t as important as planes, ships or tanks. In the special case of Germany it came down to Hitler personally imagining that the Kar 98k was the ultimate infantry weapon.
>>64476192Immense effort to re-equip an army with SMGs and produce ten billion rounds of ammunition for what is probably not a substantial overall gain compared to the cost
>>64476116>>64476165Self-loading rifles were in development and even service but were very expensive both financially and industrially (lot of complex stuff involved for the time) and then orthodox thinking, post-war penny pinching (depression, and of course there could NEVER be a Second Great War, right? Especially with the League of Nations presiding over international affairs.) and the sheer mass of perfectly fine rifles still in reserve dissuaded people from investing in something that was clearly a decade or two off from being mature enough. The only reason the French had self-loaders during the war was because they had already been pressing HARD to the future in order to beat the Bosche to the punch, like they had with smokeless powder and the Lebel, and had enough experience from early tests to draw up and shit one out for emergency service, in no way designed to last more than long enough to win the war. After winning, they promplty ran out of money for everything, and they preferred to invest in strategic weapons where they could, like a bomber fleet, the navy, and tanks. The only reason we got the Garand into service when we did was because we invested hard into that at a time that it was still quite expensive to do so, and dumped a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into getting it into mass production all the while most other armed forces were still sceptical of the notion of adopted one for general service. Only France and the Soviet Union were in any way beginning to follow suit, and Italy was considering it.
>>64476238The semi-auto rifle was kind of a useless development really It serves for a few years and then by the 50s it's already outdone by assault rifles
>>64476258Worked well enough for the US during the war.
>>64475852Because A) they were expensive and only really the likes of officers could afford them at the time andB) Warfare mainly consisted of fighting hordes of fuzzy wuzzies armed with sharpened fruit at ranges over 1,000 yards and blasting them with accurate rifle fire before they broke ranks and ran.>>64476116>>64476192>Better question why do military clutched their bolt action rifles after WWI experience.Short answer is that they were broke Longer answer is that intermediate cartridges and semi autos were in development before WW1 was a thing. WW1 happening and the surplus of ammo that it caused made switching cartridges impractical when the idea of a repeat of that war was inconceivable and there wasn't really what you could call a reliable semi-automatic rifle produced for general grunt use till WW2.
>>64475971Rolling block rifles fired pretty large rounds, not only rifle rounds that were standard in the early 20th century but also buffalo rounds that were bigger than those. Smokeless powder improved the range of rifles significantly by the end of 19th century, but most soldiers weren't trained snipers anyway. What bolt action really did was making repeating rifles cheaper than lever action rifles could possibly be. And yes, blowback operated machine guns really were the ones putting an end to gatling guns. Particularly because they were much less bulky.>>64476003No. I was saying even back when gatling guns were used, the armies had long range weapons. That's not the factor that obsoleted gatling guns.
>>64476186>>64476220>>64476328Why was being poor an excuse not to develop submachine guns? And why was soldiers wasting ammo a problem? Were there no highly trained spec ops troops to provide light machine guns to in WW1? Something like Delta Force today?
>>64476373> And why was soldiers wasting ammo a problem?Raegonomics hadn’t been invented yet. You actually had to pay for things with whatever was in your budget and loans were expected to be paid back. As such soldiers needlessly spraying bullets all over the place was considered an unnecessary expense. Especially when they could shoot an Indian or African tribal just as well with a bolt-action.
>>64476258It was a crucial stepping stone. No experience designing, manufacturing or using self-loaders would lead to worse Assault Rifles in the future, used in suboptimal ways. The kinks and iffyness of early self-loaders would just be tacked onto the first 20 or so years of Assault Rifle service. Much like black powder breech loaders giving way to metallic cartridges, then magazine rifles, and then smokeless repeaters over a 30 year period, it's all part of a cumulative development that's resulted in what we have today as quickly (or as slowly) as we have.
>>64476373>Why was being poor an excuse not to develop submachine guns?It never was. Germany was getting their brakes beaten off when the MP18s started finally making it to the front and they were the only ones who did so in any significant number. The Italians, British and Americans were all producing, designing and/or fielding submachine guns by the time the war ended; the Thompson missed being in WWI by about two weeks IIRC and at the time was known as the "Annihilator".>And why was soldiers wasting ammo a problem?In the context of assaults during WWI it wasn't and it was always a stupid argument. In a wider context, it absolutely was relevant. If Pvt. Nigel (age: 17; training: 3 weeks of rifle drills; current location: sub-saharan Africa) is scared shitless of the darkies he's being sent to suppress and starts blasting when they're 500 yards out, he'll have gone through most or all of his ammo before said darkies actually enter a reasonable range and at that point Pvt. Nigel is not only personally in danger but represents a weak link. Furthermore, if Pvt. Nigel has a self-loading weapon and, say, three magazines' worth of clips on him, then this issue is badly exacerbated. This possibility is commensurately much less likely if Pvt. Nigel has something like a Martini-Henry.>Were there no highly trained spec ops troops to provide light machine guns to in WW1? Something like Delta Force today?Lmao fuck no. The closest to that would be various flavors of shock troops (cases in point: Sturmtruppen, Arditi) and "highly trained" mostly meant "has done it before without dying".
>>64476373When the logistics train runs on hay resupply isn't guaranteed. Soldiers firing and not hitting anything are now men without ammo. Men without ammo do not advance, and should they come under attack they will retreat. If it's going to take three days for more ammo to arrive, that's three days you have to worry about a potential rout if the enemy decides to show up.
>>64476434This anon pretty much covers it but just to add on they went back to colonial wars immediately after it by shooting up the Irish and other Africans.Also the BAR left a far greater impression than the MP18 did and there were a lot of copies of that weapon more than anything post war.
>>64476434>and at the time was known as the "Annihilator".Yeah because its production en masse would "annihilate" any small arms budget
>>64475852Too expensive even a shitty cattlemen revolver still cost more than month worth salary
>>64476373>being poorIt's not just a money problem. It's a manufacturing problem. You need engineers, skilled labour, materials, machine tools, a facility to house them all in, and then a lot of time (thousands of hours most probably) just to get a couple hundred test models into the hands of troops. All of these resources, by the way, could be spent on making more rifles or machineguns, which would simply arm more men. And the vast majority of suitable industry that wasn't otherwise essential was already doing so, making finding the free capacity to spin such new weapons up a bit difficult.>why was soldiers wasting ammo a problemSee >>64476453 , on a wider scale a few troops magdumping in blind panic could eventually sap local supply, regional supply, and eventually overall supply. Ammo shortages mean you don't have the resources to mount an effective assault or defence without serious concentration of materiel, which was already being practiced in order to keep offensives fed.>Were there no highly trained spec opsNo, special forces a we know today originate primarily from WWII and beyond. The closest you had to SOF were simply experienced and ballsy troops willing to do the dangerous jobs such as the Arditi and the Stormtroopers. They were more of a glorified vanguard for offensives and trench raids, reasonably effective, but usually took heavy casualties and likely never undertook anything resembling modern SOF operations.
>>64476092Why don't you try typing what you actually mean the first time you tard, you said "designed in the United States", not "Designed in the United States and adopted by the US military"The Lewis gun is US designed, and if it's about US adoption of a great LMG the m249 is excellent, so neither point you were pretending to make holds up
>>64476116Shits expensive dudeAt the start of WW1 you could get a Maxim gun for about £160, nothing else attached and they had guns which cost about £3>do you buy a basic machinegun or equip half a company?By about the end of WW1 they got the Maxim down to about £80 which helped of course, but it didn't help the fact every cunt was so poor they're jerking off the dog to feed the cat even 25 years after it ended. Huge sums of money got spent on just ammo for howitzers, the tanks, the planes and all the food, wages, pensions etcThings were far from okSo when it comes to small arms, people dragged out what they had for round 2 boogaloo as they were essentially battle proven weapons, they're not great, the most modern or even sometimes the best solution to changing battlefield conditions and missions. But its what they had
>>64475852They got around to it eventually.
>>64476092>William Crozier hates Issac Newton LewisFTFY. Just because a few Fudds in the Ordnance Department kept strangling good ideas for petty reasons didn't mean that others weren't doing cool shit.
>>64476008>That one time some guy was like "Why don't we just use the MG42?">The weapon so effective they had to make propaganda downplaying how easily it cut people down>So they copied it, but intentionally made parts the wrong size so it'd just jam on every shot>Lol see the MG42 is actually super shit and barely works! Lets just make some more M1919A6's that suck ass!
>>64476598>straight blow back guns are expsasive Duuude please...WWII SMGs were about at bolt rifle cost, after perfections they were cheaper.
>>64476646They had to make them cheaper.There was very limited amounts of interwar SMG's at a price point people could sustain in a wartime economy, you wanted an SMG you bought a Thompson. Which is a superbly made, machined and precision gun... at BIG money prices, so they literally had to go down to the plumbing shop, mattress springs and open bolt joy rides of things like Sten Guns, PPSH and Owen guns to fill the gapAt the start of the war, the Thompson was $220 burgers and only by 1942 when the Americans joined the war after it going for 3 years did they manage to get the price down to $70-80They didn't do that stuff because it was 'better', they were fucking broke!
>>64476646Only after extensive simplification and investment driven by imminent wartime requirements (hint: not applicable to a peace time standing army) and aided significantly by 25 years of advancement in machine tools and new production techniques, which weren't so readily embraced and rushed through the door until the Germans were bombing London and the Japanese sending submarine-borne scout planes over California.
>>64475852There was no need
Fair question.It's because at that time the officer needed a force multiplier, against his own men, but the infantryman didn't need one against the enemy.The SMG only came to exist with to support storm troops, grenadiers, who were themselves a sort of reinvention. It was only with partisan combat, sorm troops, counter insurgency that the SMG became relevant. earlier on, the automatic weapons was a PDW for officers. and the maxim was a wonder weapon
>>64476879You can't post that extremely illegal, ultra deadly, super high power assault fully semi-automatic machine gun label maker here. It's disgusting anyone but the military, police, or warehouse workers can have access to that much labeling capacity.https://shopids.averydennison.com/monarch-1131-labeler/product/364
>>64476632MG42 and M1919 are literally 23 years apart. M1919 fires cheaper rounds at a third of MG42's fire rate, didn't require R&D, and was practical as a hipfire weapon. MG42 guzzled ammo and overheated its barrel like crazy. Accurate controlled bursts were difficult. Yeah it was slightly lighter, but you had to carry extra barrels and extra ammo that weighed more.
>>64476907>31 lbs dry>practical as a hipfire weaponX
>>64476907The MG42 was cheap as dirt to make and could be rechambered for 30.06 with ease.
>>64476924You heard that right.https://youtu.be/axjU4f5L_As?si=CIYlTSjQHAdFPde4&t=71
They were doctrinally unnecessary at the time.
>>64476984>cheap as dirt to makeAnd it shows.
>>64477013>And it showsBy somehow managing to be superior to every American LMG/GPMG until the 2020's?
>>64476186By the way soldiers today do spray bullets all over the place, we simply found a way to make it economical. IIRC in Afghanistan the US expended something like 600k rounds per enemy killed.>>64476373Everyone was miserable back then and ressources were not infinite no matter how you cut it.Before Haber-Bosch the only way to make explosives was to collect natural nitrates, which accumulate so slowly everyone was importing fossil guano.That same guano was used as fertiliser to grow food for your people, so machineguns could quite literally starve your army. Food security was very low at the time too so it was a hard choice, famine and the epidemics that come with it killed more than war, even within armies.
>>64477032>600k rounds per enemy killed>economicalwhat?
>>64477017Superior in what way? Yes it was very cheap to manufacture, but it's ass to actually use. In many situations in WW2 it was outclassed by infantry machine guns that were more accurate and didn't burn through ammo as nearly quick. Soldiers had to be specifically trained to shoot the gun in very short bursts. The ammo ended up being more expensive than the gun itself.The MG42 derrivatives made after WW2 had much lower or selectable rates of fire. FN MAG is superior. M60 would've been superior even to FN MAG in literally every way if it used heavier and more durable components.
>>64477076Lindybeige please get off the internet.
>>64475917The gatling gun 'disrupted' jackshit
>>64477060Even at retail prices that's a bargain compared to the cost of an infantryman these days. The US figured out after WWI that soldiers are the expensive part of war, munitions are dirt cheap by comparison.>600kThat averages something like the total amount of ammo expended over a 20 year period vs confirmed kills. It's more a testament of how much ammo the US has to spare than an indictment.
>>64477076Would've, could've, might've but wasn't.
>>64476591>the m249 is excellentThe M240 is excellent. The M249 is the opposite.
>>64477130M60 was a better gun to use, just not the most durable. But that's the tradeoff for making it light.
can't we all just agree the mg42 is the most awesome mg ever?
>>64477173It has a great reliable feed system. Everything else is meh.
>>64477017What's been adopted in the 2020s that's better? The M27 was adopted in 2010 and the M250 is a worthless piece of shit.
>>64476008>I don't think there has ever been a great LMG designed in the USStoner 63.
>>64477060If the ammunition was as expensive as in 1800 per shot it would've been impossible. This was a trillion dollar war and those rounds were accounted for.Interestingly, life insurances put the price of a human life at about a million. That changes depending on where you live and the life of a soldier is more valuable in the West for PR reasons and because the training and widow pensions.These rounds are for keeping people's heads down while a plane or artillery crew prepares to blast the entire building.
>>64475852The men were supposed to be in line with their bolties and shoot at the enemy from 2000m and the officers who had pistols needed the other hand for the sword.This is unironically what they thought at the time.
>>64475910Just make it with an internal 30 round mag and feed it with clips.
>>64477173MG3 is better.
>>64477524for bottle neck pistol rounds I'll take any kind over standard. Love them mini magnum rounds
>>64475852Nobody thought they needed one. You had Rifles for range, bayonets for melee, and grenades for close quarters.
>>64477086Accept the Bren was superiour to the Spandau you heathenous cretins!
>>64477173that's a weird way of spelling M2
>>64476192>Because every second you overstay on open ground means more casualties from artillery salvosWWI artillery beyond mortars was largely not used defensively, as the methods and technologies needed for that kind of reaction speed weren't there yet.Also an SMG is absolutely not the "meta" for the guys defending a trench.
>>64477539>MG3 is better.many say this; many are wrong
>>64475892>Officers are smart>just walk slowly thru the death field so they don't hit you!
>>64475852>tfw I saw a borchardt IRL and this thread shows upmilitaries didn't know how useful SMGs could be, fudds have always existed
>>64477862>so you don't walk into your own artillery fireftfy
>>64475852fyi most ammunition was manufactured manually prior to ww1, as a literal cottage industry similar to your bubba selling his hand loads at a gun show.
>>64477823For the artillery, the Germans tried to better coordinate with the infantry, including permanently attaching liaison officers to infantry regiments. Artillery command was altered a bit, with divisions getting anArtillerie Kommandeur, a general or senior colonel, who often stayed in a sector when the infantry were relieved to retain familiarity with the ground and conditions. In a quiet sector theKommandeurwould have around 18 batteries, one-third of them heavies (compared with 12 batteries in 1914, none of them heavy), while in an active sector he might have 30 batteries – probably too many for him and his small staff to readily control. Aminen-werfercompany (18 tubes of mixed calibres) was also intended for each infantry division. Conversely, counter-battery fire was handled by groups run from army level, mainly comprising 150mm and 210mm howitzers. Infantry tactics switched to defence-in-depth, and they sought to fight only for tactically important ground rather than trying to hold everything. The depth also created more defensive positions, and the Germans switched (mostly) from strong positions to many positions; they judged that since the Allied artillery would sooner or later demolish any position the gunners found, it made more sense to have lots of alternatives. Guns should either be protected against 9. 2-inch shells or simply concealed; anything in-between was a waste.
>>64477932Long-range guns were emphasised, and new designs of guns (and shells) were arriving that provided more range. More and more shells were needed, but the Germans had to avoid firing too fast and over-heating the barrels, since this led to premature bursts. This, combined with limitations on production and battlefield transportation, led the Germans to end prolonged intense barrages, until they ended up with only 3 minutes’ intense and 5 minutes’ deliberate fire, unless signals indicated there was a serious attack in progress: observed fire ‘executed calmly and well adjusted by observers, and methodical fires for annihilation, supports the infantry better than automatic barrages which use up an enormous amount of ammunition for a minimum result’. Observed fire was strongly encouraged since it was both more effective and needed fewer shells. By mid-1917 rigid unobserved barrages were deprecated and counter-preparation (essentially an attack-strength barrage fired in the defence) was recommended. This would not stop an attack, but would disorganise it and give the infantry a better chance.
>>64475917no it didnt, it was as hard to lug around as a small artillery piece while infinitely less useful than one, they never saw any significant amount of use whatsoever
>>64477190pkm
>>64475984it would have made more sense if it fired everlasting gobstoppers
>>64476879Needs a PEQ-16
>>64475904>1v1Stupid faggot men charged in formation. Sure the other side usually broke b4 contact but the fact remains you are a fruity rent boy.
>>64475925Enlisted are dogs to be blooded. Even to this very day. When ukeraine falls you VVILL be drafted to die in a pointless oligarchy war
Would detachable shoulder stocks still be popular on pistols if the NFA never existed?
>>64479506No.
>>64477899That's not the reason that was given
>>64480734neither is that. The reason was trench far. Men no run that far. Walk until can run far
>>64475892Go fuck yourself.I will not rest until every citizen has a 20 round magazine fed semi auto grenade launcher.
>>64477401600k rounds number is a meme that includes rounds fired in training and all other sorts of noncombat stuff, which is a substantially higher expenditure of ammo then was actually used in the police actions in the Middle East.
