How well Would the M-4/M-16 have done In Trench Warfare Of WW1?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - How well Would the M-4/M-16 have done In Trench Warfare Of WW1? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 1/4/2006 9:21:59 AM EDT

Trench warfare was a nasty dirty muddy affair. Most shooting was done either by quick shooting at glimpses of the enemy or long range sniping by the more competent shooters. When it came time to storm the trenches of the enemy [a moot point by even that time as MG fire was absolutely deadly, not to mention artillery was usually quite well dialed into no mans land.] bayonets were used quite quickly as trying to use or reload a bolt action was almost impossible. Of course, handguns were a boon at this time with the ability to fire multiple shots and reload quickly and it was there that the 1911 gained it's claim to fame.

BUT, would the M-4/16 have been able to handle both the conditions and style of warfare at that time? I can see areas in which it would excel, but at the same time I can see areas where it might fall short.

So whats your opinion?

Posted: 1/4/2006 9:26:54 AM EDT

[#1]

I think A-10s and Apaches would have been the ticket to a quick win. CAS is what they lacked.

Posted: 1/4/2006 9:28:49 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
I think A-10s and Apaches would have been the ticket to a quick win. CAS is what they lacked.

[ripley] Nuke the entire site from orbit ... It's the only way to be sure [/ripley]

Posted: 1/4/2006 9:33:11 AM EDT

[#3]

Wow, interesting thought experiment.

Wasn't the Thompson SMG kind of the M4 of its day? If so they'd have been sought after by the guys actually fighting in the trenches I'd think.

Thing is, tactics and thinking were WAY different then. Rifles generally had sights that went up to crazy distance... 1200 yards in some cases. They'd do volley fire with them.

Posted: 1/4/2006 9:45:22 AM EDT

[#4]

The US Army had a 'wonder weapon' in the wings....

Pedersen device

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Pedersen device was an optional attachment for the Springfield 1903 rifle that allowed it to fire a short 0.30 (7.62mm) caliber pistol-sized cartridge in semi-automatic mode. This wonder weapon was developed to allow infantry to dramatically increase their rate of fire while on the move during World War I, while also allowing the rifle to be used in conventional bolt action mode for long-range fire from the trenches. Production had just ramped up when the war ended, and the device remains a curious and extremely rare collectors item to this day.

History
John Pedersen, a long time employee of Remington Arms, was aware that the US would be entering the war at some point. Concerned about the inability for troops to effectively fire on the run while attempting to cross "No Mans Land", he decided to start studying the problem of semi-automatic fire that would allow them to fire from the hip without stopping. However he also realized that there would be no way the Army would accept a totally new rifle design, as they were already struggling to produce enough Springfields, contracting to produce M1917 rifle"American Enfield" with US civilian arms manufacturers and were importing Ross rifles from Canada for training purposes.

This led him to the final design of his device, which replaced the bolt of the standard Springfield with a longish device consisting of a complete firing mechanism and a small "barrel" for the small round. In effect, the "device" was essentially a complete blow-back pistol minus a receiver/grip using the short "barrel" of the device to fit into the longer chamber of the M1903 Springfield. The mechanism was fed by a long 40-round magazine sticking out of the rifle to the top left, and could be reloaded by inserting a new magazine. New sights were provided at the rear of the device. The system did require one modification to the rifle however, a hole had to be cut in the side of the bolt area to allow the ejection of spent rounds.

By 1917 his solution was perfected, and he travelled to Washington, DC to demonstrate it. After firing several rounds from what appeared to be an unmodified Springfield, he removed the standard bolt, inserted the device, and fired several magazines at a very high rate of fire. The evaluation team was astounded, and an immediate secret classification was applied. To deceive the enemy, the Ordnance Department decided to call it The US Automatic Pistol, Caliber .30, Model of 1918. Plans were put into place to start production of modified Springfields, which became the US Rifle, Cal. .30, Model of M1903, Mark I. Promises were made to have 500,000 ready for the 1919 Spring Offensive. The use of the Pederson Device in the 1919 Spring offensive was to be inconjunction with the full combat introduction of the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR).

Production
Production of the device started in 1918, along with the modified rifle that December, after the war had ended. Production continued until 1920 however, allowing the US to put the system into service if the need arose. Each device was shipped with a container allowing it to be safely carried when not in use, as well as a pouch holding five magazines. In total the device added a whopping 14 pounds to the infantry's standard load, although this was considered to be well worth it at the time.

Post-war
After the war the semi-automatic concept started to gain currency in the Army. By the late 1920s several experiments with completly different rifles from the Springfield M1903 -- which were designed from the outset to be semi-automatic were underway, including a Pedersen design firing a new .276 (7mm) rifle cartridge. However the round was dismissed by the Army, who considered it to be underpowered in comparison to the existing .30-06, and personal intervention by Douglas McArthur forbade its use. Meanwhile John Garand had also developed a semi-auto rifle firing the .276 Pedersen cartridge, and in response to McArthur's complaints he re-chambered it for the standard .30-06 round from the Springfield, and the result became the M1 Garand. The Garand was so successful that the stored devices were declared surplus in 1931, five years before the Garand had even started serial production, while the modified Mark I rifles were replaced with standard M1903 and M1903A1 Springfields. Today, the Mark I rifles are quite rare and are considered extremly collectable. All of the stored devices were destroyed by the Army except for a few Ordnance Department examples.

[edit]
More on John Pedersen
John Pedersen also developed such market successes as the Ithaca 37 shotgun and Remington 51 pistol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_device

Posted: 1/4/2006 9:53:20 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Wow, interesting thought experiment.

Wasn't the Thompson SMG kind of the M4 of its day? If so they'd have been sought after by the guys actually fighting in the trenches I'd think.

Thing is, tactics and thinking were WAY different then. Rifles generally had sights that went up to crazy distance... 1200 yards in some cases. They'd do volley fire with them.

the tommy gun was shipped off just as the war was ending and didn't see combat

Posted: 1/4/2006 9:55:34 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Wow, interesting thought experiment.

Wasn't the Thompson SMG kind of the M4 of its day? If so they'd have been sought after by the guys actually fighting in the trenches I'd think.

Thing is, tactics and thinking were WAY different then. Rifles generally had sights that went up to crazy distance... 1200 yards in some cases. They'd do volley fire with them.

the first TSMG didn't come out till 1921. Doughboys used the winchester 1897 shottie loaded with 00 buck to great effect and the Germans tried to get it banned.

Posted: 1/4/2006 10:03:21 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow, interesting thought experiment.

Wasn't the Thompson SMG kind of the M4 of its day? If so they'd have been sought after by the guys actually fighting in the trenches I'd think.

Thing is, tactics and thinking were WAY different then. Rifles generally had sights that went up to crazy distance... 1200 yards in some cases. They'd do volley fire with them.

the tommy gun was shipped off just as the war was ending and didn't see combat

whoops

Posted: 1/4/2006 10:03:51 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow, interesting thought experiment.

Wasn't the Thompson SMG kind of the M4 of its day? If so they'd have been sought after by the guys actually fighting in the trenches I'd think.

Thing is, tactics and thinking were WAY different then. Rifles generally had sights that went up to crazy distance... 1200 yards in some cases. They'd do volley fire with them.

the first TSMG didn't come out till 1921. Doughboys used the winchester 1897 shottie loaded with 00 buck to great effect and the Germans tried to get it banned.

I knew about the trench broom but not the Tommygun. My bad.

Posted: 1/4/2006 10:07:16 AM EDT

[#9]

I knew about the trench broom but not the Tommygun. My bad.

Forgive my ignorance right now, but what is a trench broom? Is that the 1897 shottie?

Posted: 1/4/2006 10:08:12 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
I knew about the trench broom but not the Tommygun. My bad.

Forgive my ignorance right now, but what is a trench broom? Is that the 1897 shottie?

Yes

Those things are so cool.

Posted: 1/4/2006 10:09:41 AM EDT

[#11]

Picture of the Pederson Device attached to the Springfield. Accessory belt in pic above.

Pederson Device

Posted: 1/4/2006 10:14:14 AM EDT

[#12]

i think it would have done just fine in the hands of disciplined, well-trained troops.

my grandfather was a trench raider during ww1. i have a dud 12ga rd he carried that almost got him killed. it was his reminder to never trust anything from the .gov.

Posted: 1/4/2006 10:37:21 AM EDT

[#13]

I think the conditions of trench warfare would be beyond the M4's abilities to cope with grime. We're talking about conditions that could foul a bolt action so badly that men would piss into the action to free it up.

The ranges would have been beyond what I would consider even a 20" 5.56 useful to.. It's really amazing how ridiculously flat a lot of the terrain was. MG's were making kills well beyond 800 yards. Tactics of the day called for much of a wave attack to be whittled down at those extended ranges.

People often think that handing a bunch of men light automatics will take the place of a significantly smaller number of crew served MG's, but in some cases the water cooled MG's of the day were called on to shoot continuously for hours and hours, stopping only to swap water, barrels, and belts.

To my mind, the biggest shortfall in the first world war was communications. I don't think any man portable weapon short of backpack nukes would have made any difference without a serious commo upgrade. CAS is only as useful as the data that guides it. Most of the war was run on sneakernet (err, hobnailnet?).

One way or the other, most injuries during that war were artillery related. The number of rifle, bayonet, and gas injuries was far less than one might think, though US forces suffered disproportionately from gas due to poor training and little experience. I'm just not sure smallarms would have made any difference at all.

Posted: 1/4/2006 10:50:41 AM EDT

[#14]

That 1897 Winny trench (or replica) gun WILL be my next purchase!! I want one REALLY badly!

Something about a shotty with a bayonet makes my thang schwang!

Posted: 1/4/2006 11:05:39 AM EDT

[#15]

From the link above:
"Designed for use by American forces in the trenches in France during World War I, the war ended before the device could be issued. By removing the bolt, inserting the device and putting a magazine into a modified rifle designated as the Mark I, the Springfield could fire semi-automatically until the magazine was exhausted. A fresh magazine could be inserted or the bolt replaced for longer range firing. This unusual ordnance item is extremely rare, as most were later destroyed. Less than 30 are known to exist."

How valuable do you think a M1903 Mark I rifle would be? I know someone that has one in pretty good condition. MJD

Posted: 1/4/2006 11:08:41 AM EDT

[#16]

Id feel pretty good with my Winchester SX2 and a shitload of ammo and gun lube.

Posted: 1/4/2006 11:13:42 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
From the link above:
"Designed for use by American forces in the trenches in France during World War I, the war ended before the device could be issued. By removing the bolt, inserting the device and putting a magazine into a modified rifle designated as the Mark I, the Springfield could fire semi-automatically until the magazine was exhausted. A fresh magazine could be inserted or the bolt replaced for longer range firing. This unusual ordnance item is extremely rare, as most were later destroyed. Less than 30 are known to exist."

How valuable do you think a M1903 Mark I rifle would be? I know someone that has one in pretty good condition. MJD

Not real. The valuable part of that equation is the Pedersen Device itself. The modded rifles are not too hard to find.

Posted: 1/4/2006 11:17:03 AM EDT

[#18]

A 100 men shooting M4's on full-auto running 800 yards across an open field towards MG fire would certainly have a better chance of making it to the enemy trench than a 100 men shooting bolt action rifles.

I can think of nothing more horrifying than to have been one of those men running towards the enemy trench.

Posted: 1/4/2006 11:18:33 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
From the link above:
"Designed for use by American forces in the trenches in France during World War I, the war ended before the device could be issued. By removing the bolt, inserting the device and putting a magazine into a modified rifle designated as the Mark I, the Springfield could fire semi-automatically until the magazine was exhausted. A fresh magazine could be inserted or the bolt replaced for longer range firing. This unusual ordnance item is extremely rare, as most were later destroyed. Less than 30 are known to exist."

How valuable do you think a M1903 Mark I rifle would be? I know someone that has one in pretty good condition. MJD

Not real. The valuable part of that equation is the Pedersen Device itself. The modded rifles are not too hard to find.

There was a complete Peterson device for sale recently on Ebay or Gunbroker (can't remember). I think they wanted maybe $30K for it (not real sure on the price either).

Posted: 1/4/2006 11:31:10 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
A 100 men shooting M4's on full-auto running 800 yards across an open field towards MG fire would certainly have a better chance of making it to the enemy trench than a 100 men shooting bolt action rifles.

I can think of nothing more horrifying than to have been one of those men running towards the enemy trench.

The problem is that the amount of firepower the attacking infantry has in their hands makes zero difference in the run across no mans land.

You are charging into interlocking fields of fire from many HMG's firing across pre registered arcs, sited in bunkers that are proof againt anything short of a direct hit from a heavy (8"+) howitzer shell.

An eyewitness at the Battle of the Somme said it looked like the men advancing were walking into heavy rain....Whole battalions were wiped out in a matter of yards.

On the Western Front if the artillery did not knock out a sufficient number of machine gun bunkers the attacks always stalled.

ANdy

Posted: 1/4/2006 11:37:03 AM EDT

[#21]

Weapons only make sense in the context of tactics. An M4 with early WWI tactics would have had exactly the same result. An M4 plus stormtroop tactics would have been better.

Posted: 1/4/2006 12:21:25 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow, interesting thought experiment.

Wasn't the Thompson SMG kind of the M4 of its day? If so they'd have been sought after by the guys actually fighting in the trenches I'd think.

Thing is, tactics and thinking were WAY different then. Rifles generally had sights that went up to crazy distance... 1200 yards in some cases. They'd do volley fire with them.

the first TSMG didn't come out till 1921. Doughboys used the winchester 1897 shottie loaded with 00 buck to great effect and the Germans tried to get it banned.

I knew about the trench broom but not the Tommygun. My bad.

___

Re:

"...the first TSMG didn't come out till 1921. Doughboys used the winchester 1897 shottie loaded with 00 buck to great effect and the Germans tried to get it banned..."

Not quite accurate!

General John T. Thompson, a graduate of West Point, began his research in 1915 for an automatic weapon to supply the American military. World War I was dragging on and casualties were mounting. Having served in the Army's ordnance supplies and logistics, General Thompson understood that greater firepower was needed to end the war.

Thompson was driven to create a lightweight, fully automatic firearm that would be effective against the contemporary machine gun. His idea was "a one-man, hand held machine gun. A trench broom!" The first shipment of Thompson prototypes arrived on the dock in New York for shipment to Europe on November 11, 1918, the day that the War ended.

In 1919, Thompson directed Auto Ordnance to modify the gun for nonmilitary use. The gun, classified a "submachine gun" to denote a small, hand-held, fully automatic firearm chambered for pistol ammunition, was officially named the "Thompson submachine gun" to honor the man most responsible for its creation.

With military and police sales low, Auto Ordnance sold its submachine guns through every legal outlet it could. A Thompson submachine gun could be purchased either by mail order, or from the local hardware or sporting goods store.

source: http://www.auto-ordnance.com/vg_thompson.html

Ed

Posted: 1/4/2006 12:27:22 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
A 100 men shooting M4's on full-auto running 800 yards across an open field towards MG fire would certainly have a better chance of making it to the enemy trench than a 100 men shooting bolt action rifles.

I can think of nothing more horrifying than to have been one of those men running towards the enemy trench.

The problem is that the amount of firepower the attacking infantry has in their hands makes zero difference in the run across no mans land.

You are charging into interlocking fields of fire from many HMG's firing across pre registered arcs, sited in bunkers that are proof againt anything short of a direct hit from a heavy (8"+) howitzer shell.

An eyewitness at the Battle of the Somme said it looked like the men advancing were walking into heavy rain....Whole battalions were wiped out in a matter of yards.

On the Western Front if the artillery did not knock out a sufficient number of machine gun bunkers the attacks always stalled.

ANdy

so, RPGs or an AT4 would be better than a M-4?

Posted: 1/4/2006 12:30:55 PM EDT

[#24]

Germany had the MP18 submachinegun in WWI

History
In 1915 the German Rifle Testing Commission at Spandau decided to develop a new weapon for trench fighting. Originally intending to modify an existing weapon, technical issues made this impractical so the Commission determined that a completely new kind of weapon was needed. Hugo Schmeisser eventually designed a weapon to fulfill the requirements. This weapon was designated Maschinenpistole 18.I (MP18). The MP18 was a solid weapon, for it was a soundly engineered piece of equipment with near commercial grade fittings. The MP18 had a well machined walnut butt stock and breech block, and the blow back mechanism was made of the finest materials. Produced by Bergmann, it served in the later part of the war. It was used by the German police force after the end of the war.

The MP28.II was an improved version of the MP18, used by the German police and by SS units. A version of this weapon was made in Switzerland known as the SIG M1920, and one by Steyr Solothurn in Austria known as the MP34.

Operation
The original MP18 was designed to use the Snail drum magazine that was designed for use in the long barreled Luger Artillery model pistol. This rotary design type of magazine holds 32 rounds of 9mm ammunition and the user would have to load the magazine with a separate, and unique loading tool. As the snail drum magazine was originally designed for the Luger pistol, a special sleeve was required when the Snail drum was used on the MP18. This sleeve was slipped over the top part of the magazine and was used to stop the Snail drum from being inserted too far into the receiver and jam the firearm when it was fired. Later modifications to the MP18 allowed the use of a staggered box type magazine as used in the later developed MP40 sub-machine gun. The MP18 could only fire in the fully automatic mode, while the later developed MP28.II was designed to allow the user to select single shot or fully automatic fire modes.

Service
The MP18 would prove to be an excellent weapon. Its basic design would influence later submachine gun designs, and copies of it were made in several countries, such as the British Lanchester SMG and the Japanese Type 100. The open bolt design left one problem: if the butt was given a hard knock while the bolt was fully forward while a loaded magazine is inserted, the gun could accidentally fire. Soldiers liked to leave the bolt of their firearm forward so dirt and debris would not enter into the barrel and chamber that could cause a malfunction to occur when the firearm needed to be fired. Later sub-machine gun designs like the Sten gun were designed to allow the cocking handle to be pushed inwards to lock the closed bolt to the tubular receiver casing. This design change prevented accidental discharges when the bolt was left forward and a loaded magazine was inserted.

Posted: 1/4/2006 12:35:31 PM EDT

[#25]

My Winchester 1897 made in 1916

Posted: 1/4/2006 12:39:03 PM EDT

[#26]

One doughboy with an AR15 or M16 would have eliminated the entire German army and half of the French army. This is due to the fact that the AR15 is the only weapon capable of killing your opponent in a firefight.

Posted: 1/4/2006 12:45:54 PM EDT

[#27]

Chuck Norris could wipe out an entire division with an M-16.

Posted: 1/4/2006 1:04:40 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
A 100 men shooting M4's on full-auto running 800 yards across an open field towards MG fire would certainly have a better chance of making it to the enemy trench than a 100 men shooting bolt action rifles.

I can think of nothing more horrifying than to have been one of those men running towards the enemy trench.

The problem is that the amount of firepower the attacking infantry has in their hands makes zero difference in the run across no mans land.

You are charging into interlocking fields of fire from many HMG's firing across pre registered arcs, sited in bunkers that are proof againt anything short of a direct hit from a heavy (8"+) howitzer shell.

An eyewitness at the Battle of the Somme said it looked like the men advancing were walking into heavy rain....Whole battalions were wiped out in a matter of yards.

On the Western Front if the artillery did not knock out a sufficient number of machine gun bunkers the attacks always stalled.

ANdy

+1

Its interesting to note that in the Way of the Gun series they called the Maxim machine gun the #1 most influential gun.