Why do you think....

C

Clancy

Regular
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
N. Catasauqua, Pa.
Gentlemen,
...that other countries did not seem to take work on a semi-automatic rifle as important as we did? The Military from around the world were working on all types of new things but not a massive change in their military rifle, the Infantry man's best friend.

Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read this data. I hope you learn some data.
Clancy
ps could use some hits
NRA Life Endowment
NRA Training Counselor
NRA Instructor
FSS 90% / BW X Speed Div by 1000 = PF
 
Your country wasn't quite as devestated by the previous war and had the resources and manpower to undertake such an enterprise.
 
"...not a massive change in their military rifle..." Militaries around the world were still thinking 'trench warfare'. Most senior officers figured any new war would be a repeat of W.W. I. Especially the French and British. Mind you, there wasn't the money available for R&D or purchasing a replacement for the PBI rifle either. However, there was lots of work being done around the world. Just no money or government interest to do anything.
 
Greenfields said:
Plus the Gov't in questions had huge surpluses of existing rifles (proven rifles) that with minimum mods could be updated.
Click to expand...

I'd say that would be one of the main reasons. Many countries had vast arsenals left over from WWI, composing of rifles, machine guns, and other small arms. As the rest of the branches were modernizing (air force, navy, armoured corps, artilllery, etc), the infantry rifles were left by the wayside.

Just think of what changed the most between WWI and WWII: submarine warfare, ship warfare, tank warfare, aircraft warfare, and tactics. All of those require expensive development programs, and were obviously much more important to the war effort than 'just' rifles. The most modern infantry rifle in the world won't save your battleships from aircarft carriers or subs, or your infantry from modern armour, or your factories from tactical bombers.... All of those things require expensive programs and a good chunk of industrial labour output. Rifles got left by the wayside.

Don't forget, the Lee-Enfield, Mosin-Nagant, and the K-98 were ALL supplanted by cheaply made, more modern, sub-machine guns that acted as a stop-gap measure for the more frequent close-in fighting of WWII.

Skippy said:
Your country wasn't quite as devestated by the previous war and had the resources and manpower to undertake such an enterprise.
Click to expand...

True, but the Russians, by contrast a very poor country, still developed the SVT 40.... it just wasn't well suited for their peasant army, but the PPSh sure was! The Americans, being a more industrialized society, took to more complicated weapon systems easier than the armies of 'old Europe' did.

As for the Germans, and French... they were too busy developing bigger weapons systems to kill each other with. The French had the Maginot line and a collection of geriatric Generals leftover from WWI who had their biases. Even fresh minds like DeGaulle encountered much resistance to his 'crazy new ideas' like combined arms tactics and independant mechanized divisions.

As for the Germans... they were too busy re-building their Navy, Army, and Air Force to worry about rifles. Hitler had his preference for the K-98 as well.

The Japanese suffered from much of the same issues as the rest of 'old Europe's' armies did: An indifferent, dated, officer corps, with the added hinderance of Japanese tradition. "If that's all we had when we joined... it's good enough for you" Samurai defended their honour like men, and not with such 'ghastly' weapons that gave the peasant soldiery so much individual power.


I really need to back off on the coffee.....
 
Last edited:
The French had a continuing semi auto program in the 20s and 30s. They were ready to adopt the rifle which became the MAS 44, 49 and 49/56 in 1940. See "Proud Promise" on this subject.
Russians had two SAs in production for WWII.
 
probably the same reason that the garand ended up being chambered in 30-06 instead of 276. to use what was on hand.

both britain and france probably had more rifles than they knew what to do with. both were deeply in debt, and had other projects to spend their resources on. things like the maginot line.

germany was busy with things like airplanes, machine guns, submarines, all of which are more important than rifles.

all were grinding slowly towards "better" systems, like the russians trying to replace the nagant revolvers and mosin-nagant rifles. france with the MAS36, britain with new revolvers and the LE#4. austria upgrading the M95, the turks, poles, and yugos trying to standardize on rifle patterns and cartridges.
 
The same reason we are still using a 40 year old small arm and a nearly 100 year old sidearm - because they worked. Nothing necessitated the change at the time.
 
... There was also the entrenched mentality amongst the "Military Leaders" of the period. Change was resisted because it was different, as were tactics... they believed that the next war would be fought from clearly defined lines (Trenches? ) and I suspect, little regard given the intelligence of the average Soldier of the time. ... Cost, political will, willingness to accept, let alone embrace , change, all played a part. ..... David K. .....
 
Gentlemen,
I have reports and standard files that talk about the use for a semi-auto rifle and in one word the main reason was the "AIRPLANE". It was new in WW1 and its attack on Infantry was a very BIG reason for that semi. This gave ground units some type of defense against it. If you remember, not that long ago one of our NEW APACHE's was shot down by a group with AK-47's?? Reports in the late 1930's talk about how ground units went after target sleeves towed by aircraft with many hits thus giving the guys on the ground a chance to get through an air attack with some confidence. As to the time to build and test and get into production well, that's what my BOOKS ARE ALL ABOUT. Testing started before the ink was dry ending WW1. My books don't tell you what goes where it tells you how it got to be there in the first place.
Thanks again guys this is just what I try to do get you to think and get into it.
Clancy
 
ww2 stared in 1939, why is it your country didn't take it as important as we did? You took 3 years longer to get ready - it's no wonder you had fancier weapons!! ;)

Clancy said:
Gentlemen,
...that other countries did not seem to take work on a semi-automatic rifle as important as we did? The Military from around the world were working on all types of new things but not a massive change in their military rifle, the Infantry man's best friend.

Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read this data. I hope you learn some data.
Clancy
ps could use some hits
NRA Life Endowment
NRA Training Counselor
NRA Instructor
FSS 90% / BW X Speed Div by 1000 = PF
Click to expand...
 
Tyler said:
As for the Germans... they were too busy re-building their Navy, Army, and Air Force to worry about rifles. Hitler had his preference for the K-98 as well.
Click to expand...

The Germans had two projects on the boil for replacing the bolt action rifle when the war started; a semi-automatic rifle for the 7.92x57 round and the assault rifle project.

But un-realistic expectations severly hampered the first and lack of faith in the intermediate cartridge concept stalled the second.

But like you said, budget constraints and a tactical doctrine that revolves around the machine gunner not individual riflemen, ment that the Germans didn't consider replacement of the Kar98k a high priority.

To the OP; keep in mind that the actual impact of individual small arms fire is very limited. The vast majority of infantry casualities are caused by artillery and machinegun fire.
 
bas said:
To the OP; keep in mind that the actual impact of individual small arms fire is very limited. The vast majority of infantry casualities are caused by artillery and machinegun fire.
Click to expand...

As I recall, the general accepted figure for artillery casualties (mortars included) on the Western front in WWII, from a number of sources, was around 70%-80% for both sides.

It isn't hard to believe when you consider the amount of shells they fired in that short 10 month period.
 
I'm pretty sure that a large number of senior officers were fond of saying "If you give the infantry semi-automatic rifles, we won't be able to keep them supplied with the ammunition to use them." Same mentality that kept the magazine cutoff in Enfield rifles as long as it did. Perhaps something to be said for that reasoning, as is constantly said on this board about hunters using semi-auto rifles "spray and pray."
 
Germans reported being under automatic MG fire in WW2, when in truth they were under fire by a group of Brits armed with (you guessed it) Enfields! Give some credit to the job that these individuals did with the tools at hand!

I agree with the ammunition usage argument too. Using older, larger calibers than many current weapons limited the amount of ammunition soldiers carried. This is the same argument used by the US now to stay with the .223 and not go with the 7.62. Give everyone the same ammunition and lots of it.

Aircraft introduced into the combat theater led to AA guns and firearms which were better suited to take them down. Many of these were a larger caliber with more range and energy which is not the same direction that infantry rifles have taken. If anything, military rifles led to assault rifles in WW2 which was a semi or fully automatic action, but a smaller (physical length) round with less effective range.
 
germany was light years ahead of america with me262 jet fighter, v2 rockets and the mp43/44

But adolf hilter refused to allow developing these weapons early enough in the war and in enough numbers to help they also lacked the manufacturing might of the U.S

the mp43/44 was probaly the most advanced rifle type developed durning the war and turned out to be the rifle type of the future

lack of ammo was a major problem hampered by the leadership and allied air raid dammage
 
contact148 said:
germany was light years ahead of america with me262 jet fighter, v2 rockets and the mp43/44

But adolf hilter refused to allow developing these weapons early enough in the war and in enough numbers to help they also lacked the manufacturing might of the U.S

the mp43/44 was probaly the most advanced rifle type developed durning the war and turned out to be the rifle type of the future

lack of ammo was a major problem hampered by the leadership and allied air raid dammage
Click to expand...

Light years ahead of America you say? Ever hear of the atom bomb? Remind me, who built that?

As I recall, the USA did quite well in WWII. Also, the Limies built a pretty good jet engine, but official disinterest hampered its development. It happens to some extent in every country. And all the V2s and assault rifles in the world would not have helped the Nazis stand up to the industrial might of the USA.

Uncle Sam was more than a gimmick or fluke. He was a sleeping giant, with enough industrial might to make the world quake. When you speak of a particular rifle of airplane, you speak only of trifles. The American machine rolled over Nazi Germany like a water buffalo might trample a chicken.

The Germans were idiots to try F**ken with Uncle Sam.

BB
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom