User Panel
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? |
|
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] |
|
|
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 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 |
|
the tommy gun was shipped off just as the war was ending and didn't see combat |
|
|
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. |
|
|
whoops |
||
|
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. |
||
|
Picture of the Pederson Device attached to the Springfield. Accessory belt in pic above.
Pederson Device |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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! |
|
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 |
|
Id feel pretty good with my Winchester SX2 and a shitload of ammo and gun lube.
|
|
Not real. The valuable part of that equation is the Pedersen Device itself. The modded rifles are not too hard to find. |
|
|
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. |
|
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). |
||
|
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 |
|
|
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.
|
|
___ 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 |
|||
|
so, RPGs or an AT4 would be better than a M-4? |
||
|
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.
|
|
Not as well as an XM8. |
|
|
XM8... now only available in Airsoft. |
||
|
M16? Not that big of a deal. M16 vs crew served machine gun? M16 loses.... a lot. For a real difference? Armor. The tank came late in the war. Had it been reliable and developed/perfected/deployed earlier, it would have changed the way the war was fought. Improved air to ground offensive capablity was too late as well. WWI was the opening act to WWII. The years between were a sort of intermission so the various combatants could do their R&D and tool up for the main event. |
|
RPG's and AT4's wouldnt' be much of a help. Once you went over the top, you would be greeted by 7.92 MG08 Maxim's or .303 Vickers, and you still need to advance several hundred meters through no-man's land to get in range to shoot them. You also would have artillery coming in to hamper your advance and thus making you a fat, juicy MG target. Also both sides had some very good snipers too, so good in fact, if you popped your head up to take a look of the otherside of no-man's land, you would be greeted with a headshot. Here is how nice the some was on day one for the British army.
WWI Deaths |
||||
|
The M-16 would have made very little difference in WWI. Machine guns, artillery, and the like were the big killers.
A couple of good reads for folks interested in firearms: "A Rifleman Went to War" and "The Emma Gees", both by Herbert W. McBride. Great books for riflemen. |
|
Given the technology available at the time of WWI, was there a better strategy they could have used for attacking the enemy trench, other than everyone just jumping out of the trench and running directly into numerous machine-guns, only to be cut down in a few yards? |
|
|
I used to think the M4 would have been the greatest thing to take back in time to fight in past wars. But now that you bring up trench warfare I'm not so sure the M4 would be my first choice.
Granted, having an armory of M4's might allow for the tacticians to plan differently. Now the Civil & Revolutionary Wars... the M4 would have been taken the field every time. I love imagining what it woud be like to go back with whatever I could carry on my person and help fight the war. |
|
A very complex question, TacticalStrat. But you have the important issue identified: "Given the technology available at the time of WWI...". That's the issue. Given the trench system, dug in machine guns, indirect firing of "emma-gees", (which was basically "raining" down bullets that were shot at a high elevation, so that the bullets fell like rain), there was no way , given the technology of the day, to cross the open no-man's land. The development of the tank was a step in the right direction, but it would be many years before effective tanks were available. WWI was a horrible war, as shown in the chart of eodtech2000's above. The scale of death is hard to imagine. |
||
|
I'm thinking McMillan Bros. or Barrett 50 cals would have made a difference.
|
|
|
It appears once a side gained fire superiority and had their machine-guns and snipers in place, it would be very hard for the other side to ever gain it back. I can't imagine a more horrible way to fight a war than trench warfare. Running into the machine-gun fire might be welcome compared to living in a water-filled trench for weeks on end with rats and diseased dead bodies floating around. |
|||
|
Not really. In his book, McBride was a sniper who developed many of the tactics used since that time by snipers. He was not really limited by his weapon (which was a .303). He made shots as far away as he could identify targets. The big problem was that with the trench system and the nature of the terrain, he didn't have the ability to see very far and identify targets. No one dared to just walk around in the open. He had to identify small targets of opportunity, such as a part of a head, and take the shot. He was very successful. |
|
|
The tactical problems of attacking trenchlines with MGs could be solved, and largely was by the later war years, albiet not all that well. The UK did it by increasing the volume and size of artillery fire, the Germans by more accurate artillery fire plus stormtroop tactics. If you wanted to charge trenchlines in a long line abreast of infantry you'd lose whether you were carrying an Enfield or an M4.
Long answer: What changed between WWI and WWII? Stated differently, why was WWI static while WWII was fluid? Several issues. 1) Mobility. WWI strategic and operational mobility was provided by the train, while tactical mobility relied on feet and horses. It took time to penetrate a trenchline, and during that time the defender could reinforce by train faster than the attacker could exploit by foot and draft animal. This was changed in WWII by the internal combustion engine, and after a penetration the attacker could go up to a few hundred miles while supplying by truck. 2) Speed of assault. The tank enabled rapid penetration of trenchlines. (But without the truck, as discussed above, this was of limited utility). 3) Communications. Radio enabled realtime control of forces over a wide area. It's no coincidence that Guderian was a radio communications officer in WWI. 4) Aircraft, and coordination with ground forces using radio. |
|
tag for when I have time to write something, we have too few discussions about the great war
|
|
McBride tells of the experience that whenever there was a big artillery barrage, which happened with some regularity, it would "plow up" new parts of dead bodies and throw them around. The soldiers would gather them up and bury them away from the trenches, but the next barrage would plow up some more. In addition, each barrage would kill and dismember many new bodies. The horror is difficult to imagine. |
|
|
Would the glass that goes with high end 50's not have helped solved that part? ETA: Are we talking about something that one side has and the other doesn't? Like and edge that might make a difference? Or both sides have it? Night vision might have made a big difference. |
||
|
The M4 would have kicked ass.
Might as well ask how the lever actions at the end of the Civil War did against muskets. BTW, the BAR was available during WWI but the US military refused to release them to the troops for fear they would fall into enemy hands. The WWI-preWWII era were not exactly a shining example of good military leadership. |
|
Yep--by spring 1918 the Germans sucessfully penetrated the UK trenchline and nearly made it to the channel. They did it by modifying their tactics, though it was still expensive in terms of lives. later in 1918 the allies could penetrate German lines through the use of greater volume and weight of artillery fire, plus some new innovations like tanks. |
|
|
This being arfcom, begs the question. Which side? Edit: Regarding tactics & technology, I'd say this was a war where all else being equal defense was greater than offense. |
|
|
There is nothing to see or shoot at. Indirect fire by machine guns means the MG is below the ridge/trench line and firing up into the air and raining down it's bullets onto a pre registered area. On some mounts you didn't have to aim or move the MG, it had a ratchet that moved it back and forth using the recoil, all you had to do was keep feeding it bullets. ANdy |
|||
|
I understand the concept of indirect fire ...I guess I'm just having a hard time imagining a landscape completely devoid of cover or defilade or something allowing a sniper with an extremely long range weapon to get shots. Say by not being in one of those predetermined areas? It must have been hell on earth. |
||||
|
Yes, the Germans did overrun the British lines but the attacks were stopped because yet again, tactics evolved. The British High Command traded ground for time and waited for the Germans to outrun their supply lines... then they rolled them back. In 1918, the reason the Allies were able to break through and keep going was they had finally started mastering the concept of all arms combat using tanks/aircraft/artillery in concert. ANdy |
||
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.