The last year of ww2 saw most armies shifting their primary ground weapon from single shot bolt actions to automatic rifles or smgs.

The last year of ww2 saw most armies shifting their primary ground weapon from single shot bolt actions to automatic rifles or smgs. Which makes me wonder, why didn't they do that earlier? It's not like automatic designs didn't exist in the 30s or even the 20s, and considering how the brunt is made by artillery, tanks and air bombings and infantry mostly just sweeps the rubble, ditching bolt actions wasnt a bad idea after all.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why are tanks still being produced despite drones reigning supreme? The military industrial complex doesnt exist to sell the best stuff, but to sell the stuff they make the most money with. As long as you can fleece government represantatives with goodies like production facilities in their home state or direct payments, they will keep using your shit. Change only comes when the enemy gets an edge so massive, political action is taken and the MIC is forced to adapt.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Germans at least used machine guns in specialized teams to suppress and kill while the infantry were mostly just to initiate/sustain contact and maneuver. Unironically as long as your infantry rifle is good enough (can kill people out to a few hundred meters, is reasonably accurate, is cheap and robust) it doesn't particularly matter what you use. Especially back then when armor wasn't a consideration and basically any hit on a target would frick them up.

      Also tooling/cost of manufacture. There was some cope about "encouraging troops to not waste ammunition" and while that still kinda holds today (see most soldiers not getting full auto rifles in the west, instead getting burst ones) it was always a bit of a meme.

      Shut the frick up moron. Make a drone thread so we can filter you if you want to spout this moronic nonsense.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The tank Black person cries out in pain after he is struck by the most uncomfortable truth.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Sage

          Come back when your drone can defeat walls horizontally

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The Germans at least used machine guns in specialized teams to suppress and kill while the infantry were mostly just to initiate/sustain contact and maneuver. Unironically as long as your infantry rifle is good enough (can kill people out to a few hundred meters, is reasonably accurate, is cheap and robust) it doesn't particularly matter what you use.
        Unironically for maneuverinf part of the infantry SMG is the best gun (context of production capabilities included). It absolutely shits on the bolt rifle in CQB, where machine gun fire support effects are minimal for all types of the combat.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The Germans at least used machine guns in specialized teams to suppress and kill while the infantry were mostly just to initiate/sustain contact and maneuver
        not really
        they had a platoon-level machine gunner who fired from a tripod and a squad-level gunner who fired from a bipod
        this is basically identical to how the US and soviet squads operated, only functional difference is that the squad MG used a belt-fed instead of a mag-fed

        they stopped splitting squads into fireteams late war and just operated as a single death ball because of a combination of all their NCOs dying and because the scale of war had increased so much and theatre shrank in physical size so much compared to the early part of the war that there wasnt room to operate below platoon size anyways

        the only ones who actually operated differently from everyone else were the british
        squads operated without a machine gun at all, all their MGs were directed and fired from a bren gun section
        while their tripod-mounted MG, the vickers, was held at the brigade-level and attached to platoon rather than organic to the structure
        so their machine guns were much more concentrated and were the only ones to even have specialized MG units at all, the vicker gun section

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In order to innovate you have to employ a steady backwall of "antiquated" tech, otherwise you might be caught with your economical pants down if your innovation sucks ass.

      Like this moron talking about tanks, but he has a point. Tanks (manned vehicles) are the reliable backwall, drones are the new innovation that needs finetuning.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bolt action rifles is what they had.
    SMG is the easiest autoloader to build.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Literally every shitty service rifle decision ever made by any country in the last three centuries can be explained by "the guy making that decision was 70 years old"
    Once upon a time somebody really fricking coped that literal muskets were better than Henry repeaters because "they didn't waste ammo"
    Similar arguments were had every day about the sheer sovl of bolt actions giving them tremendous advantages over complex and possibly homosexual automatics
    There was an entire generation of seething that box mags existed, led by a fundamental belief that no human being would ever be able to keep or operate them
    As we speak the US military is currently fighting to bring back battle rifles because someone is still THAT asshurt over the M14 losing
    The experts looked at our infantry right now and said "The problem with our guns is that they're too light, don't have enough recoil and carry too much ammunition"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >because someone is still THAT asshurt over the M14 losing
      then they wouldnt adopt this

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This posts captures the spirit perfectly
      >We've always done it like this, why would we change it
      This mentality isn't exactly condusive to change, couple this with industry, outdated strategies and doctrine and it all falls into place. I'd say the traditionalists still wanted to have rfiles everywhere being able to kill the other guy from 500 meters away, meanwhile in the realworld the killing was done far more up close and those pistol calibers they looked down upon where far better in spraying down enemies.

      >The Germans at least used machine guns in specialized teams to suppress and kill while the infantry were mostly just to initiate/sustain contact and maneuver
      not really
      they had a platoon-level machine gunner who fired from a tripod and a squad-level gunner who fired from a bipod
      this is basically identical to how the US and soviet squads operated, only functional difference is that the squad MG used a belt-fed instead of a mag-fed

      they stopped splitting squads into fireteams late war and just operated as a single death ball because of a combination of all their NCOs dying and because the scale of war had increased so much and theatre shrank in physical size so much compared to the early part of the war that there wasnt room to operate below platoon size anyways

      the only ones who actually operated differently from everyone else were the british
      squads operated without a machine gun at all, all their MGs were directed and fired from a bren gun section
      while their tripod-mounted MG, the vickers, was held at the brigade-level and attached to platoon rather than organic to the structure
      so their machine guns were much more concentrated and were the only ones to even have specialized MG units at all, the vicker gun section

      >hey stopped splitting squads into fireteams late war and just operated as a single death ball
      >a single death ball
      Kek.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean, America did do this with the Garand in the 30’s. Automatic designs existed in the 1910s, France attempted to standardize a semi auto/autos in WW2 to success, 90,000 RSCs and 300,000 chauchats. They also were extremely problematic designs that probably turned brass off from making semi-autos the standard service rifle post-war and other nations took note.

      I mostly agree with this, but on the flip side at least in response to OP, retooling and spending literal billions (or millions back then) to gamble on autos and semi autos and completely retrain militaries to use them is a substantial enough reason why it didn’t happen with more nations earlier. You can produce 3 mosin nagants at the same speed you can produce one SVT and for cheaper. There is merit to “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” at scale.
      I also thought they want to bring back the battle rifle since body armor that will be fielded by potential enemies can stop 5.56.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        France attempted to standardize a semi auto/autos in WW1***
        Picrel is the Mannlicher 1885 Semi-Auto “ Handmitrailleuse”.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/6mDSJY9.jpg

          I mean, America did do this with the Garand in the 30’s. Automatic designs existed in the 1910s, France attempted to standardize a semi auto/autos in WW2 to success, 90,000 RSCs and 300,000 chauchats. They also were extremely problematic designs that probably turned brass off from making semi-autos the standard service rifle post-war and other nations took note.

          I mostly agree with this, but on the flip side at least in response to OP, retooling and spending literal billions (or millions back then) to gamble on autos and semi autos and completely retrain militaries to use them is a substantial enough reason why it didn’t happen with more nations earlier. You can produce 3 mosin nagants at the same speed you can produce one SVT and for cheaper. There is merit to “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” at scale.
          I also thought they want to bring back the battle rifle since body armor that will be fielded by potential enemies can stop 5.56.

          >Box mags le impossible thee gun

          https://i.imgur.com/ml1S367.jpg

          Literally every shitty service rifle decision ever made by any country in the last three centuries can be explained by "the guy making that decision was 70 years old"
          Once upon a time somebody really fricking coped that literal muskets were better than Henry repeaters because "they didn't waste ammo"
          Similar arguments were had every day about the sheer sovl of bolt actions giving them tremendous advantages over complex and possibly homosexual automatics
          There was an entire generation of seething that box mags existed, led by a fundamental belief that no human being would ever be able to keep or operate them
          As we speak the US military is currently fighting to bring back battle rifles because someone is still THAT asshurt over the M14 losing
          The experts looked at our infantry right now and said "The problem with our guns is that they're too light, don't have enough recoil and carry too much ammunition"

          >There was an entire generation of seething that box mags existed, led by a fundamental belief that no human being would ever be able to keep or operate them

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Magazine issues are the most common cause of FTF in autos. Beyond momentum and old heads a lot of it had to do with smg's and other auto small arms not being a mature technology yet with a lot of trial and error and development needed to make good, reliable designs. This makes a lot of military procurement people trepidicious.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/cQGjwXA.jpg

        France attempted to standardize a semi auto/autos in WW1***
        Picrel is the Mannlicher 1885 Semi-Auto “ Handmitrailleuse”.

        j-j-jammomatic

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        To be fair to military purchasers too, there's a difference between a small arms innovation existing and one being viable for military use. Most early semiautomatics would've been terrible choices for wide issue to varyingly trained troops for use in field conditions with limited access to armourers and maintance supplies.
        Don't forget that arguably the most iconic gun of the war, the Thompson, was pushed into service while still being based around an operating principle that turned out to be complete fricking nonsense. A lot of this stuff wasn't completely uncharted, but it was still emerging. The US was right to back the Garand when it did but I also don't fault those that were more cautious.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I also thought they want to bring back the battle rifle since body armor that will be fielded by potential enemies can stop 5.56.
        There is no known armor configuration that will stop generic 5.56mm rifle rounds but will fail to stop generic 6.8mm rifle rounds

        5.56mm is actually pretty nasty against armor as calibers go, compare that specific "small diameter at high speed" logic that lets lower energy 5.7mm rounds poke through soft kevlar vests that would stop .45s dead in their tracks. That said, modern advancements in plate armor have made it pretty damn difficult for anything to get through at all.

        The 6.8mm cope for this is to make bizarre exotic tungsten ++P+ rounds and shit, which discounting all other forms of madness, is also something you can do with 5.56mm

        No, the principal reason for NGSW is the most horrific kind of fudd mythmaking - apparently our brave soldiers in Afghanistan were constantly overmatched by Taliban snipers on mountaintops miles away plinking them with 7.62x54R fire. I believe this as much as I believe in North Korea's legendary bulletproof wool coats that turned M1 Carbines into airsoft guns.

        To be fair to military purchasers too, there's a difference between a small arms innovation existing and one being viable for military use. Most early semiautomatics would've been terrible choices for wide issue to varyingly trained troops for use in field conditions with limited access to armourers and maintance supplies.
        Don't forget that arguably the most iconic gun of the war, the Thompson, was pushed into service while still being based around an operating principle that turned out to be complete fricking nonsense. A lot of this stuff wasn't completely uncharted, but it was still emerging. The US was right to back the Garand when it did but I also don't fault those that were more cautious.

        The Garand was interesting because it was a rare Radical Paradigm Shift that was genuinely mass produced and successful, but at the same time was much less Radical than its failed magical prototype peers. It feels like a literal gun incarnation of one of those "monkey marching into man" illustrations, in that it still borrows so much from the operating logic of Mausers and Mosins and Enfields, but it's also the future staring everybody in the face. Probably sums it up that it was the most advanced service rifle in the world in 1936 and the most primitive one in 1956.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that Hitler personally hated the STG-44 and had to be tricked into approving production of it, proving once again that nobody is ever right 100% of the time

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fun fact: Stg-44 concept failed. Nobody makes infantry rifles in short and weak 7.62 rounds.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        *laughs in Blackout*

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's not an infantry rifle, it's special purpose (suppressed) rifle.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What are you even talking about? They did for decades. This is like saying muzzle loading rifles failed because we use the M4 now.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Germans literally adopted G3 battle rifle after Stg44. Yeap short and weak 7.62 failed.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            8mm kurtz is very similar 7.62x39, your argument is moronic.
            Also the US shipped M1 carbines around the world for militaries to use and the .30 carbine is on par with .357 magnum in energy.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >8mm kurtz is very similar 7.62x39, your argument is moronic.
              You are missing the point.
              Short and weak 7.62 failed. And vatniks are behind shilling for this falied caliber (muh AK-47!).

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Which makes me wonder, why didn't they do that earlier?
    Literally deludsionse of eternal boomers in charge of the military
    >muh rifles
    >muh range
    >muh salvo fire
    >muh armor penetration
    Past WWI it was perfectly clear proper grunt gun is SMG

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The military was worried about grunts wasting ammo by carelessly spraying and praying under stress. They did not necessarily believe that it would increase battlefield efficacy and worried about logistical support. This is why 3 round burst was a thing for so long.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Conservatives being conservative for conservative sakes and asking "why should be do something new? We want to do things like we always did them".

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bolt actions were a sunk cost. They had armories full of them. And at the beginning of the war the sub machine guns everyone had were kind of expensive. Like the US had the Thompson which was milled and pretty and expensive, then we tried the M2 that Marlin made cheaper by using sintered metal, then we made the M3 out of mattress springs and a cut up tube.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they had millions of them. they worked.

    yes a soldier with a stg44 is more lethal than one with a kar98k. but how much more lethal?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A sturmgewehr can sweep a whole room clean, they are exceptional in cqc and urban warfare which was exactly the main theatre in the last 3 years of the war, between operation barbarossa and the siege of Berlin. Can a 8 mm Mauser do the same?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Sling it from an FG42 and presto

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine being a bureautard thinking that making suicide torpedo subs and hypergolic fueled pilot melters was cheaper than simply make more ammo for smgs. This mentality of infantry= ignorant cannon fodder didn't work in ww1, this was a disservice to the soldiers who died on the front.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *