Bolt-Action Rifles in WW1 and WW2

[WritOfCertiorari]

One somewhat interesting aspect of the two world wars was that while technology advanced dramatically, the main service rifle of virtually all European armies remained the various bolt-action rifles which had been invented in the 19th century. The main country to enter the Second World War with a semi-automatic service rifle was actually the United States, with the well loved M1 Garand rifle that was later replaced by the M14 and then the M16. By the end of the war, many units started using the semi-automatic rifles, and I believe at the very end of the war, some early selective fire rifles were actually put into use as well (obviously, mounted machine guns were used since well before WW1, but not as carried weapons).

There were a few reasons for this, including the idea that semi-automatic rifles would "waste ammunition" and lead to less aimed shots and more sprayed shots. Another reason might have been that the semi-automatic magazines were not as readily available in many countries at the time (these were developed later and could actually be used with modified bolt action rifles as well). However, I think that the main reason why semi automatic weapons weren't used was the idea that tactics were more important than superior weaponry. The theory was that the cost of upgrading to semi-automatics would take too long, cost too much, and not have a huge impact, anyway.

A question though is, would it have make a huge difference if say, assault weapons had been introduced a bit earlier, or was it more prudent to stick with bolt-action rifles for the time being? I think yes, especially in Germany's blitzkrieg campaigns, but the Russian campaign was doomed to fail from the start anyway.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Germans typically had at least one MG34 per platoon, and they wanted more but just didn't have the capacity to build more.

However, you missed a major reason why many militaries soldiered on with bolt action rifles, reliability. They needed less maintenance and were generally more accurate than semiautomatic rifles of the era.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also, something that is repeatedly emphasized in the video series The Great War, supply.

If you have all these guns in storage, you are going to use them. Some countries got so desperate as to roll out black powder weapons and other antiquated rifles from as far back as the 1870's, because they ran out of bolt action/smokeless powder rifles, or couldn't meet demand.

Some countries also went to war with their primary supplier. Romania and Greece got their guns from Austria, and once they went to war withe them, orders placed would be seized and in some cases fired on the very people they would have been sent too.

Another factor is tactics. A lot of Armies went to war still thinking like it was 50 and 70 years prior, with horses and bayonets. Understanding concepts like fire superiority, trench and then mechanized warfare would take years of expensive experience. Changes in rifles and equipment tend to match the learning curve in this regard.

[dead0man]

A bolt action rifle or semi-auto is more useful at 500m than full auto.  (not that full auto doesn't have a use at that range, but oddly it's not about actually hitting dudes with bullets.  It's about making them too scared to move so your friends can get in position to do the killing in a safer.  Which is why a squad of will normally only have one.

That said, there were full auto weapons used in both WWIs and not just big boys.  Submachine guns.  (Tommy Guns from the era, UZIs are a famous example from modern times)  They weren't used much in WWI, but the Germans did field this guy at the end of it.

Bolt actions suck at close range, shot guns are alright and everybody used them, but they are/were slow with limited ammo and slow to reload.  Not good when you're storming a trench.  Which is where submachine guns (and fully auto pistols) come in.


But yeah, if the Germans had invented the assault rifle in 1915 instead of 1943 they likely would have won.  But you could say the same thing about a dozen or so things...jet engines for example.

[WritOfCertiorari]

Bolt actions suck at close range, shot guns are alright and everybody used them, but they are/were slow with limited ammo and slow to reload.  Not good when you're storming a trench.  Which is where submachine guns (and fully auto pistols) come in.

This was probably why bayonets were so important until the submachine guns and automatic pistols came into play. Bayonets are also decent for close range and attacking a trench, more for the fear they invokes than actual utility...

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Bolt actions suck at close range, shot guns are alright and everybody used them, but they are/were slow with limited ammo and slow to reload.  Not good when you're storming a trench.  Which is where submachine guns (and fully auto pistols) come in.

This was probably why bayonets were so important until the submachine guns and automatic pistols came into play. Bayonets are also decent for close range and attacking a trench, more for the fear they invokes than actual utility...

Yeah. From what I've heard--and this is only thanks to podcasts, not actual reading--the direct utility of a bayonet was probably nil. In an age of guns and (relatively) removed killing, soldiers no longer had the stomach to run right up to people and start stabbing them, and would of course have preferred to avoid having the same thing happen to them.

[dead0man]

Oddly, I'm pretty sure the old ass M16s we trained on in basic had bayonet lugs on them.

for fun, the last bayonet charge by the US Army was in the Korean War.

You must be logged in to read this quote.