On small arms don't win wars

Well then of course you would for finding of equipping der mighty Deutsch army mit G-11 und kick the Englander arses back to the channel

g11 had kind of shit accuracy though

dubs elevens of truth!

That said, though, would accuracy be that problematic with a target rich environment in the trenches?

Oh, for some reason I was thinking general use trench to trench. For storming trenches, probably not a problem.
I dont know how reliable they were but I do remember seeing the awful hit rates at greater ranges compared to the m16 posted here. Assuming they were reliable, theyd be pretty mean up close

>Would this have any notable effect on the outcome of the war?

Modern optics alone would make the fixed MG positions of the time a death sentence to man, since marksmen would be able to pick off spotters and gunners from ranges that the enemy wouldn't even be able to see them, let alone hit them.
Likewise, the availability of light machine guns and semi/fully automatic infantry rifles with very high capacity magazines and optics would mean that MG positions and trenches could be effortlessly suppressed and overrun. Trench warfare would cease to exist as a viable tactic, immediately.
Even more so, the volume of fire that infantry could produce would be enough to shoot down planes of the time, before you even consider what strapping a bunch of HMGS together on an AA mount or plane could do. I mean, think about the astronomical advantage that a pilot would have if his guns weighed half as much and fired twice as fast? What if he had twin MG131s or Kords? Think about how deadly a rear gunner on a bomber would be if he had twin MG3s with a modern optic?
Then of course, .50cal MGs and rifles with AP ammo would also turn most tanks of the time to scrap metal before they even got half way across no man's land.

The first day of the war would be the most one sided slaughter of all time and then the opposing power would just capitulate terror.

Attached: 2819740442_e150186b6a_z.jpg (640x480, 117K)

Ah yes, the WWI tanks, which are known for their extreme reliability and not just being giant metal death traps.

The allies would inevitably capture some and reverse engineer them

Something something technological plateau

With modern assault rifles and small-group tactics, as other anons in this thread have said trench warfare would become an absolute slaughterhouse. The entire point of an assault rifle is to give your average soldier a submachine gun/LMG when he needs it AND have a rifle as well, after all; just look at the AARs from world war 2 with the Germans fighting Soviets. The StG44 was a huge game changer even in the second world war, it just came too late to be useful. Imagine how huge it would've been if they had not just an StG44, but an M16A4 or M4A2 with modern ACOGs, or AR10s loaded up with 7.62 black tips. And that's not even touching proper modern automatic weapons; imagine if they had MG34s or 42s! Or, fuck, even that Hi-Point 10mm carbine, that would've been a wunderweapon at the time for trench work.

>The allies would inevitably capture some and reverse engineer them
Reverse engineering a modern assault rifle or MG would be extremely difficult and time consuming for a WW1 era nation, since:
>They lack the technology to make virtually all of the alloys and plastics that modern designs need to be functional.
>They lack the precision machining that makes the designs possible and/or reliable.
>They lack the manufacturing capacity to mass produce complex weapon designs.
>They lack the high powered, clean burning propellants used in modern cartridge designs.

The reality is that neither side was able to produce enough sub-guns to meet demand; so even if they managed to develop an assault rifle or LMG using what they could learn from modern techniques, it would be extremely inferior and they wouldn't be able to produce enough to make a difference.

Trench warfare is still used to this day, idiot. It's only broken by effective armor support.

Oh look, an idiot

>Trench warfare is still used to this day
I'd go look up the definition of trench warfare before running your mouth, because it's probably not what you think it is friendo.

>It's only broken by effective armor support.
Also check out 'fire and maneuver tactics' while you're at it.

>modern light machine guns are made for a single man
Is this true? I’ve been living under a rock for a while but I always thought that 0331s and Army Machine Gunners always had a 2nd man?

>Germans need an entire arsenal of modern arms manufactured a century after the initial conflict just to win a war
Can't make this shit up

Attached: durst-fred-photo-xl-fred-durst-6209268.jpg (401x496, 46K)

M855a1 would go through the armor
M995 definitely would

Not that guy, but 0331s and Army Machine Gunners handle crew serviced GPMGs and HMGs belong to their own squads. With LMGs, virtually all contemporary militaries employ gunner/Automatic riflemen as part of fireteams or squads who will carry an LMG such as an M249 or RPK or maybe an automatic rifle and will operate and maneuver the weapon by himself.

This is compared to the most common WW1 automatic weapons, which were divisional HMGs that needed a minimum of three men to maneuver them and usually needed to be broken down for repositioning, unless they were mounted on a wheeled carriage.

Attached: Marine-Automatic-Rifleman-marine-corps-13603997-1600-963.jpg (1600x963, 701K)

So if I went 0331, then I wouldn’t have to worry about being the guy that just feeds him ammo and never gets to shoot the gun?

0331s do crew serviced weapons and can have loaders/spotters depending on how the weapon is deployed (most crew serviced weapons are vehicle mounted now). If you wanted to be an automatic rifleman, then you need to go 0311 (rifleman) and hope that you got assigned that role in your squad.

Yes, because the advances in small arms would not mesh with the lack of advancements in other areas. LMGs are of limited utility tactically when they cannot be rapidly called forth to exploit a breakthrough or defend a line for example.

Arms do not develop in a vacuum, and to properly use modern arms in a modern way you need other tools to assist in this. Its why such a counterfactual like the one you proposed is unthinkable on its face.

>LMGs are of limited utility tactically when they cannot be rapidly called forth to exploit a breakthrough or defend a line for example.
This is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read on Jow Forums. Fucking tripfag retards, I swear.

If modern optics include night vision and thermal, the battlefields would have been a shitshow come nightfall.

Small arms don't win wars UNLESS they're significantly more advanced (as in by hundreds of years).

Small arms onlynwin wars if there is a huge technical disparity.
>Would this have any notable effect on the outcome of the war?
With the extra's you added? No. I'm sure WW1 Germany may have been able to mass produce assault rifles if you have them enough support, although stuff like stamped sheet metal (Stg, AK) and aluminium casting (AR-15) is still extremely challenging. However, very little weapons in WW1 wereld equipped with optics at all, and your conversion this leaves many rifles without a big force multiplier. The real bottleneck will be ammunition production though: twice as many bullet is not nearly enough to feed semi automatic weapons. WW1 was won and lost by economics, and Germany does not have the economy to make sufficient intermediate rounds to keep assault rifles fed at a rate where they're more efficient than bolt actions.

Then refute it chief. If your unit lacks communication to exploit a potential breakthrough then the advantage of superior firepower is greatly diminished. That's why offensives almost always lead to nothing but high casualties.

You’re such a retard. British tanks spearheaded the first breakthroughs of the war and they changed combat so much that the French and the Germans followed along immediately.

>If your unit lacks communication to exploit a potential breakthrough then the advantage of superior firepower is greatly diminished.

Jesus Christ, utter fucking retard.
Germany utilized fire and maneuver tactics with squad level LMGs from the outset of WW2 and had such great success with it that they revolutionalised small unit tactics and had the rest of the world scrambling to catch up. Were there any squad level radios during WW2? No there wasn't, retard.
And one of the big reasons why germany was able to develop their fire and maneuver tactics, is because of the lessons they learned from the french and US troops who used LMGs and automatic rifles to suppress trenches and machine gun positions during assaults. Were there any squad level radios during WW1? No there wasn't, retard.
The ability to bring reliable, high capacity LMGs across no man's land to perform overwatch and suppression for maneuver and assaults would have been devastating in an era when trench assaults were routinely successfully prosecuted with nothing more than bolt action rifles and hand to hand combat. Adding in assault rifles would simply be a a slaughter.

Now fuck off.

You say the Germans didn't innovate in areas other than small arms, do you mean this as in the Germans are behind in every other field, or that the Germans have parity in every field except small arms?

they have exactly as they started with and would of chronologically developed

The idea that small arms don't win wars is usually due to extremely salty posters triggered by some aspect of discussion about something or another and really isn't worth the effort of rebuttal.

Look at some of the shenanigans modern NATO forces do with IR, thermal, and Night Vision against forces that don't have them to get a sense of what would happen.

Your not impervious but you have a huge advantage in low light.

Now go to WW1 and give them modern optics which let them see at night and see further and more clearly.

Now give them a faster firing and lighter weapon that is as accurate or more. Replace their static machine guns with one that weighs half as much and is movable to support the squad. Then add in grenade launchers and mortars with smoke, ir flares, and fragmentation. Allowing platoon to place accurate suppresive fire on the move, at night when the enemy can barely see you if at all.

You now have an insane advantage in maneuver warfare. With any of these things it may be sufficient to change the course of the war if commanders can implement it correctly.

Reverse engineering does not involve making an exact copy of something. What 1914 lacked was not base capability, but designs. There was nothing stopping the production or even retrofitting of a gas operated rotating bolt back then, except an idea of how it could be achieved.

Imagine how awesome that must've been. Ballin' out with your closest 300 friends in mini tanks. It's like go-carting but the police can't stop you.

I mean, they wouldn't be fine-tuned machines with perfect balance, but it would be perfectly possible to build an assault rifle using the technology of the time with aluminum replacing most of the delicate alloys.

Last use was in the Iran-Iraq War, that's not exactly "today" and the result of both nations not being able into optics.

You mean steel replacing the aluminium? Because there's no delicate alloys in any reasonable gun.

Ukraine

>trench warfare
>tactic
Pick one

> kraut with M16 runs up to mK1 or Renault.
>Sticks muzzle thru view port, pulls trigger.
>crew dead
Repeat

Brit tanks got rekt after German learned to fight them.
It was only the advent of infantry support and massed tank attacks that kept the Germans from turning the war around.

That and shortages of almost everything and civil disorder.

Good solid Aryan genetics in that picture, I like it.

I would 100% agree with you that today small arms don't matter as much. However that is because tanks, jets, missiles and artillery are so much more advanced. You could replace all the M4s with Mini-14s and the it would make a small difference because of all other other war machines surrounding a foot soldier.

But in great war tanks and airplanes where just started being used. Artillery did make a difference and was greatly improved as during the war. With many other technologies not fully developed the small arms of an individual soldier matters much more an it does today.

WW1 was so terrible purely because the Generals had no idea how to fight a war with the weapons they already had, I can't imagine what giving the Germans modern weapons would do to improve the actual tactics/strategy used in the war.
First 30 seconds sorta related: youtube.com/watch?v=ZHTRZpe9J7k

(Sorry for the shit vid quality) Also think of how Suvla bay would have changed if the Brits had modern weapons. Probably not at all.

I would argue in conventional total war it would matter greatly. The smallest improvement matters, because infantry is much more numerous. If 9 men can do the job of 10 men, that means you've just gained a 10% extra manpower freed up for home industry, or sent to crew war machines. Or, 10 men can defeat 10 other men, and out of that small difference comes a huge exponential gain in battle superiority. And then there's the morale implications. 9 men won't defeat 10 men, they'll be able to defeat much more. And the combined arms implications. Superior small arms doesn't just improve infantry, it improves everything else.You could argue that in nuclear war or modern conflicts infantry doesn't matter, but then again, neither do any of the other arms.

Replacing M4s with Mini-14s would make an astounding difference.

So, if our infantry had bolt-actions, then it'd be just fine if the enemy had semiautos because we have superior air power?