Auto & Assault Carbines Revisit

[Epee]

There were glimmers of "light-weight, personal firepower" one hundred years before the M16 was developed; and while a perfectly workable 1st generation aluminum-framed, assault rifle could have been produced with TL4 industry, no one foresaw the need of such a weapon as no one foresaw the realities of industrialized warfare.

It is worth noting that, in the case of current assault rifles, while they may be lighter and not be capable of killing at two kilometers, they are not using "carbine" ammunition anymore; at least not in current non-Traveller terms. The shortened rounds of the Stg-44 and AK-47 are old tech, while the 5.56x45mm and the equivalent Russian round are full-power "Light" rifle cartridges, man-accurate out to the same ranges the rifles of the early 20th century were.

 

[kilemall]

Ferguson's rifle as an ahead-of-tech handmade example comes to mind, the semi-automatic Italian airgun Lewis and Clark used is another. Both handmade by geniuses, too expensive for general production and therefore limited in utility and costly to equip more then a few for.

 

[Epee]

The Henry/Winchester rifles are another example. They utilized the then cutting edge tech of metallic cartridges of mid-range power.

Later and even closer to "assault rifle" was the Russian Fedorov Avtomat of the WW1 era. Using a light-for-European 6.5mm Arisaka to improve control in automatic fire.

SMGs were the upcoming weapon of choice between the world wars due to their use of readily available ammunition and relative ease of manufacture. But their limited effective range made their users next to useless in low-intensity static warfare and open country fights.

 

[Carlobrand]

There were glimmers of "light-weight, personal firepower" one hundred years before the M16 was developed; and while a perfectly workable 1st generation aluminum-framed, assault rifle could have been produced with TL4 industry, no one foresaw the need of such a weapon ...

I suspect there were circumstances in which some realized the need for such a weapon in hindsight ... in the moments before they were overrun and slaughtered by a much more numerous hostile force.

 

[Epee]

I suspect there were circumstances in which some realized the need for such a weapon in hindsight ... in the moments before they were overrun and slaughtered by a much more numerous hostile force.

Shotguns, light cannon, pistols and SMGs worked well in those scenarios.

It was the poor Joe trying to seize a strong point filled with machineguns and riflemen that wished for an assault rifle.

 

[Condottiere]

There's always been speculation why any army didn't re-equip with Winchesters once they became available.

The same logic prevailed until the Great War that doubted the utility of a machine gun during an offensive, running out of ammunition as troopers were inclined to be profligate if given the chance, for not that much increase in lethality.

As recounted by the Germans, well drilled and trained troops could create the same lead shower as a machine gun, certainly within the first minute, and might be bullet for bullet more accurate.

 

[whartung]

There's always been speculation why any army didn't re-equip with Winchesters once they became available.

Part and parcel to the rifle design is being manifest as a secondary pole arm with the bayonet.

Winchesters are actually quite light vs a battle rifle. They're also filled with a bunch of fiddly parts in contrast to a bolt action. I imagine that in bad environments, the lever action isn't as reliable as a bolt action, or as easily cleared during malfunction. They were probably more expensive to make as well.

The spitzer bullet design in unsafe in a tubular magazine, and you get much greater ballistics from that design than the classic round nose pistol style bullet of the Winchester. Yes, of course you could have a magazine fed lever action (Savage 99 for example, as well as other Winchesters).

 

[Epee]

The WW1 Russians, in their desperation for small arms, bought several hundred thousand Winchester Model 1895 lever-actions, modified to load with stripper clips.

Some nations, the Ottomans being the greatest, did adopt the tube-fed Winchesters, but most often as Cavalry carbines. The chief flaw, besides the expense, was the limited range of the cartridges they used. The primary military doctrine of the day, indeed the primary land warfare doctrine from the 17th century through WW1 was to have everyone line up and shoot at each other; whoever could shoot the furtherest would win. Troops gradually spread out, and differing methods of advance came and went, artillery move back and forth with regard to the front line, but it was still basically, "Line up and shoot, that way".

 

[aramis]

The WW1 Russians, in their desperation for small arms, bought several hundred thousand Winchester Model 1895 lever-actions, modified to load with stripper clips.

And, per Paul Avrich in a 1994 or 1995 paper, nots that they still only had a weapon for every 7-10 soldiers.

 

[atpollard]

And, per Paul Avrich in a 1994 or 1995 paper, nots that they still only had a weapon for every 7-10 soldiers.

That’s OK, I read an analysis of WW2 battles that determined that only 1 soldier in 10 did anything that contributed at all to the outcome of the battle ... so as long as the right 10% get the guns, everyone else was just going to stand and watch anyway.

 

[Condottiere]

One eason that armies tended to emphasize constant drilling; also, ranged combat tends to make the life and death paradigm one step removed. Certainly, modern armies have been working on removing that hesitation from their current enlistees.

On the other hand, the other nine can form his entourage and carry his equipment.

 

[aramis]

One eason that armies tended to emphasize constant drilling; also, ranged combat tends to make the life and death paradigm one step removed. Certainly, modern armies have been working on removing that hesitation from their current enlistees.

On the other hand, the other nine can form his entourage and carry his equipment.

The stats for WW II, last I found them, were 1 in 10 fired for effect, 3 in 10 fired in any given engagement, and 1 in 10 never fired at all, and 2-3 in 10 seldom fired.

GW I was 3 in 20 fired for effect, and around 1 in 20 never fired at all, I've seen conflicting numbers for fired in a given engagement, but the TASC conclusion was pretty strongly favorable with the modern approach, which is far less drill, and far more combat simulation. You can't condition a man to fire in combat unless you have realistic exercises. MILES was a major improvement in the 1980s, and it gave the changes (along with other systemic training differences).

 

[wellis]

The stats for WW II, last I found them, were 1 in 10 fired for effect, 3 in 10 fired in any given engagement, and 1 in 10 never fired at all, and 2-3 in 10 seldom fired.

GW I was 3 in 20 fired for effect, and around 1 in 20 never fired at all, I've seen conflicting numbers for fired in a given engagement, but the TASC conclusion was pretty strongly favorable with the modern approach, which is far less drill, and far more combat simulation. You can't condition a man to fire in combat unless you have realistic exercises. MILES was a major improvement in the 1980s, and it gave the changes (along with other systemic training differences).

For the WW2 numbers, was that based off of that study that was later to have been found to be really cherry picked by its author? IIRC he sort of lied right?

 

[Condottiere]

The Great War British Expeditionary units seemed very effective.

Studies tend to reflect biases and foregone conclusions, so how cherry picked the results are I couldn't say.

I don't think you have that luxury of just firing off your rifle at close quarters combat, as I recall, it was implied in that study that the general reluctance to kill by conscriptees, plus ranged combat, contributed to that statistic.

 

[wellis]

The Great War British Expeditionary units seemed very effective.

Studies tend to reflect biases and foregone conclusions, so how cherry picked the results are I couldn't say.

I don't think you have that luxury of just firing off your rifle at close quarters combat, as I recall, it was implied in that study that the general reluctance to kill by conscriptees, plus ranged combat, contributed to that statistic.

If it's by SLA Marshall, then I think there might be issues with the numbers.

 

[BlackBat242]

The Henry/Winchester rifles are another example. They utilized the then cutting edge tech of metallic cartridges of mid-range power.

Later and even closer to "assault rifle" was the Russian Fedorov Avtomat of the WW1 era. Using a light-for-European 6.5mm Arisaka to improve control in automatic fire.

There were glimmers of "light-weight, personal firepower" one hundred years before the M16 was developed; and while a perfectly workable 1st generation aluminum-framed, assault rifle could have been produced with TL4 industry, no one foresaw the need of such a weapon as no one foresaw the realities of industrialized warfare.

I suspect there were circumstances in which some realized the need for such a weapon in hindsight ... in the moments before they were overrun and slaughtered by a much more numerous hostile force.

Burton 1917 LMR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGyJPFzNfU&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1wUJLI-a0rowH5C5X_XycUTXwpuYmwEeBBIMnE3wLuvar-5ZBlHYUlzUo&app=desktop

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Burton_1917_LMR

 

[Epee]

Burton 1917 LMR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGyJPFzNfU&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1wUJLI-a0rowH5C5X_XycUTXwpuYmwEeBBIMnE3wLuvar-5ZBlHYUlzUo&app=desktop

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Burton_1917_LMR

Never heard of the Burton. Thanks for that!