WW1
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
I dont understand much about WW1 era weapons, I cant find any good answers on it without getting mixed up with WW2. Im probably just stupid.
General WW1 Thread
>>29907233
Well, what do you want to know?
>>29907233
What is there to understand? Do some basic fucking research on wikipedia.
>>29907233
Also quite a lot of guns from WWI were carried over into WWII. Especially regular infantry rifles, albeit some with upgrades.
>>29907233
GAS GAS GAS! ahhhhhhhh lerrghrgffjfhfbfbg "died"
Over the top!
Maxim: not today mother fucker! "Died"
My feet are rotting and my general just told me I need to shine my boots to instill discipline. Died.
*whistling sound* died
Any other questions?
>>29907233
Do you have any specific questions?
All you really need to know is that everybody was using bolt-action rifles in roughly 0.30 in caliber as their primary infantry weapon. Officers would be issued a pistol (usually a revolver) which they would use to shoot soldiers who tried to run away.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1897
The Trench gun fucked up the krauts so bad they whined and tried to get it banned from conventional warfare.
>>29907427
People in general whined about the dumbest things.
I honestly don't understand why the ban on hollow-points has never been rescinded.
Nobody would be whining about 9mm if they were allowed to use JHP rounds.
>>29907427
>waaaaa 1897 OP allies pls nerf
fucking krauts
>>29907427
>>29907462
Just like the entente whined about German gas and saw-back bayonets, threatening to shoot every man carrying them.
>>29910009
I heard about saw bayonets on both sides, actually IIRC, french hardened soldiers immediately told the newcommers to get rid of it, due to hardcore retaliation from the Germans on the one using it.
Something along the lines of both eyes popped out, brutal evisceration with said saw-blade and some other pleasant stuff
While the same Germans would've probably rescued your ass if your just packed a "normal" bayonet.
Fighting spirit and fair play at war were still a thing back then
>>29910023
saw bayonets not banned. American and British three sided ones were. hun wonder why.... try reading. gas was not banned due to death but due to cripples and pain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce
This is pretty interesting, any other wars where such a thing took place? I've also heard of dying soldier(german and british) smoking cigarettes in bombcraters together.
WWI really was the shittiest war.
>>29907427
I want to buy one of these and ship it to the Netherlands since it is not considered a firearm here. What is an acceptable price to pay for one in the USA? And shipping costs?
>>29910196
>soldiers died in ww1
>therefore it was the shittiest war
Not sure if serious
>>29910200
>therefore
Where did I say this.
I didn't even say soldiers did, I just stated that WWI was the worst war to fight as a normal soldier, in my humble opinion. Name one war that was worse.
>>29910198
>it is not considered a firearm here.
Really? I'm from the Netherlands too, what makes you say that?
>>29910210
Dutch law. Look up "vrije wapens", these specific winchesters in black powder get sold quite often, usually in the 1200-2500 € range. A Dutch /k/ommando I quite often see irl informed me about it.
>>29907233
Most powerful German weapon of WW1
>>29910023
>I heard about saw bayonets on both sides, actually IIRC, french hardened soldiers immediately told the newcommers to get rid of it, due to hardcore retaliation from the Germans on the one using it.
The contrary; it's Germany who used sawback bayonets, with 6% of produced bayonets having the saw (by model, so for example, 6% of the M1884-98 had a sawback).
While planned as a tool the saw provoked terrible wounds and as such German soldiers captured with it were, as you said, generally shot on the spot or tortured by allied troops (especially French and British).
On the other side I recall that the French Lebel bayonet was a pain for surgeons as the cruciform blade made it so the wounds were hard to stitch and heal.
I always wondered why Germany threw a tantrum about the M1897 while shotguns, usually of civilian origins, had been used since the beginning of the trench war (IIRC there even was some pages in the French infantry manual about their use).
Though of course none of them were as sophisticated and practical as the M1897.
>>29910023
>>29910354
>Something along the lines of both eyes popped out
Fucking How?
>>29910486
Head in a vice, maybe?
>>29910497
Oh right, I'm stupid
I thought the post was saying that it was the Saw-Bayonet wound that caused the eyes to pop out, Rather than it being the punishment for using one.
Shut up, I'm tired
>>29907233
Basically, it was the first time all the major powers got to test out all their fancy new weapons in a while. Weapons, especially defensive ones like arty and machineguns, had way surpassed offense capabilities, which was part of what lead to the stalemate of the trenches.
>>29910210
>Name one war that was worse.
Pacific with the yellow devils in the jungle? Eastern Front basically anywhere?
Then again you did have comfier times like early in the war or the western front.
>>29907233
Can you read german?
If yes, get this
https://vsmedien-shop.de/visier-special/visier-special-ausgaben/5232/visier-special-72-die-waffen-des-ersten-weltkriegs
It was made for total noobs of that era
>>29910861
>Weapons, especially defensive ones like arty and machineguns, had way surpassed offense capabilities, which was part of what lead to the stalemate of the trenches.
No! Not weapons, not technology. I hate this. It's not like machineguns magically gave everyone +5 to defense but -/+0 to attack. The problem was, as usual, doctrine and logistics. Not the tools and toys.
The war was not waves of soldiers getting out of a trench and getting gunned down immediately by a machine gun. After all, artillery was the numero uno killer. In fact, did you know that more often than not, soldiers in WW1 reached the parapet of the enemy trench across the no man's land?
Crossing the NML was never a problem. (Well, or rather "the" problem, as it was certainly no cakewalk). Holding what you gained was. Not losing it to a counterattack was. Getting resupplied or reinforced without mechanization or motorization was. Let alone exploiting your gains which only made every single thing above difficult with every yard you gained.
Meanwhile, the defenders have a short walk from their support networks. And many men ready to oust you from your tiny little stretch of land.
So no, weapons' "offensive capabilities" were not surpassed by their "defensive capabilities", whatever that means. They all had the same weapons at their disposal. In fact, did you know that machine guns were widely used for indirect fire, especially by the British? As in a section of guns suppressing an area couple of miles away. By shooting real high and arc like. Well, relatively.
>>29910943
>No! Not weapons, not technology. I hate this. It's not like machineguns magically gave everyone +5 to defense but -/+0 to attack. The problem was, as usual, doctrine and logistics. Not the tools and toys.
Well obviously machineguns were a huge part of it and they really did give a huge advantage to the defensive side. You can't just lug around a maxim on a charge over no man's land, but the enemy can just sit in his trench and fire a maxim from a protected position.
>>29907233
The most important advances in firepower and its use prior to and during WWI were made in field artillery. Breach-loading guns and howitzers became much easier/quicker to load, and new reciprocating mechanisms allowed field pieces to absorb recoil while remaining in the same position--negating the need to re-lay the gun after firing each round. The Germans, though lacking the raw industrial might of the Triple Entente, had better guns and better artillerists using them.
The machine gun was also a significant advancement, with the Maxim gun (also fielded by Germany) being the most iconic. Germany began with a slight advantage because the Maxim was originally superior to anything the British, Russians, or French could field. The British Lewis gun leveled the playing field in this respect.
The advancements in fixed-position, industrial firepower resulted in the tactical defense being unusually strong--historically the offense was (and is again) the superior posture. Great expense of ammunition and manpower was needed to make any significant offensive gains, but tactical success did not translate well to operational gains due to the primitive nature of contemporary communications equipment.
Pic not related
>>29907455
because anyone who tries will be crucified by hippies and leftists in their home country. Same as with gas.
>>29907455
The effort needed to revise the Hague Conventions most likely outstrips the relatively superficial tactical significance of the ball vs. hollow point debate for sidearms.
>>29911934
>The machine gun was also a significant advancement, with the Maxim gun (also fielded by Germany) being the most iconic. Germany began with a slight advantage because the Maxim was originally superior to anything the British, Russians, or French could field.
Only French didn't use Maxim or its derivative. In fact the only nation that used EXACTLY Maxim and not its copy or licensed version was Russia.
>>29911934
>The Germans, though lacking the raw industrial might of the Triple Entente, had better guns and better artillerists using them.
Their 77mm(or was it 78, whatever) field gun had inferior range to both British 3-inch and French 75mm field guns. Creeping barrage tactics etc. were also fielded first by the entente.
>>29910200
>therefore it was the shittiest war
It was literally the shittiest war in that you would sit in a trench for months filled with shit.
You would have people die and you couldn't bury them anywhere but the side of the trench walls, when it rained the mud would get loose and the dead would pour back into the trench with you. Your feet would rot from the moisture, the cold would give you frostbite and if you tried to stay warm with a fire the smoke would give the enemy a target to aim at with their artillery. Going over the top cold, tired, and hungry, you would be shot at by a maxim or slip and fall on barbed wire, the odds of you surviving the war were %20.
>>29912239
And if you did survive and come back with ptsd you considered yourself lucky because Johnson hasn't stopped dancing since '16.
>>29912169
The Entente and the French in particular were still obsessed with using their artillery in direct fire roles, resistant to preregistration, and utterly indifferent about counter battery. A good chunk of their artillery experience during the war consisted of ignoring Petain's ideas until after the German's stole them and successfully used them against the French.
Also the French get bottom marks for basing their pre-war strategy on rapidly firing artillery, but never stockpiling enough shells to actually do so. Though lack of ammo stockpiling ws a massive crisis on all sides.
The French 75mm was a damn good piece though.
As horrific as the war was, what gets me every time are the Pals Battalions. Entire towns and villages were rendered ghosttowns after the war.
