Why didn't the Europeans use shotguns in ww1?
>They're inhumane!
So are flamethrowers, trench clubs, artellery shells, bayonets, and gas....
A tube fed 12 Guage would have been fucking useful as fuck in 1915-17 when trench warfare was at its highest.
>>29998715
>Europe: cucked since 1915
Dumb fucks probably used birdshot
Didn't some people use shotguns to skeet shoot incoming grenades out of the air?
>>29998715
would you care to explain why do you think a shotgun would have been more suitable in trench warfare ?
>>29998896
>what are trench raids
>>29998715
French and British wanted to adopt dual-barrel shotgun but opted out because they've decided that they'd rather have pump-action(because duh, magazine) but they didn't have time to develop one before the war ended.
Germans opted for what became submachineguns.
>>29998896
>Why would a shotgun be good in incredibly cramped trenches at extreme close range.
Dunno.
>>29998715
Do you really want to carry 100 shotgun shells around with you while you are trying to shoot at something that could be as far as 100 yards.
>>29998715
Because ultimately, artillery and machine gun were doing the most casualties and they didn't care about wanting to be special snowflake.
>>29998946
>>29998971
You're both retarded.
They've literally made makeshift maces from everything just to have an advantage in close quarters with stormtroopers often opting out from rifles in favour of grenades, pistols and shovels/maces/knives.
WW1 had more to do than sitting in trench and lobbing artillery shells to the other trench.
>>29998903
>>29998938
Why would a shotgun be superiour than the standard issue rifle of that military? Life isn't call of duty, a full size rifle cartridge will kill them just as dead as a 12 gauge.
It's the same argument for home defense, shotguns don't have magical spread like they do in videogames.
>>29998914
If know y'all didn't forget about muh SchnellFeuer Mauser C96 machine pistol
>>29998996
im not those guys but you would have faster followup shots and much shorter barrel.
and id rather have a short barrelled pump action shotgun in an enclosed space than a full sized WW1 era bolt action rifle.
>>29998996
Shorter, better stopping power, the M1897 had that slamfire ability bolt-actions didn't have, the spread DOES help with hitting a little bit.
It's more of the rifles being overkill for trench conditions than for shotguns being so great though. During WW2 only americans still used shotguns because everybody(including americans) used SMG's.
>>29999025
C96 in various versions was probably used by every single side of WW1.
There was also that semi-auto French(don't remember the name) and Russian(Fedorov?) rifle.
>>29998867
Old wives tale. Grenades are heavy as fuck and would not be deflected by birdshot.
>>29999042
>>29999045
>shorter
If you had a dedicated melee rifle
>Muh stopping power
No
>Muh spread
No
Nobody is going to issue a separate rifle and cartridge around due to cost and difficulty in manufacturing.
A shorter barreled pump action rifle would be a better option than a shotgun if you're going to have a dedicated melee weapon that isn't an smg
>>29999078
>If you had a dedicated melee rifle
Nobody had one. Germans did in 1918.
>Nobody is going to issue a separate rifle and cartridge around due to cost and difficulty in manufacturing.
Americans did.
>A shorter barreled pump action rifle would be a better option than a shotgun
Too bad there were none rifles like that ever produced, like you're totally wrong or something like that.
>>29999093
The point is that there is no advantage that a 12 gauge has over a full size round at ten feet.
>>29998896
I dunno anon. Maybe some nation should of extensively used them to great effect, causing germany of all people to cry unfair.
>>29998715
I remember there being a lack of ammunition that would be usable for the military. While there were brass shells, most of the shells were a type of stiff paper; fine for civilian use, not so great in wet, muddy trenches.
The U.S. soldiers with shotguns would test each shell to make sure it would feed and not bind before they went into battle.
Can't remember which documentary I got this info from.
>>29998715
Because the Germans were fedoras and didn't like it when their soldiers were found with a face full of American buckshot.
>>29998903
>>29999155
then why not use an a15 in a sbr configuration ?
because a mass produced , reliable tube fed 12 gauge shotgun with reliable ammo in 1914 is about the same level of anachrautism
>>29999115
Except for a pump and the ability to miss and still Nick the guy
>Bububuubbububbuuu the spreaaaaad!
Yeah. The spread. It fucking spreads. Live with it.
>>29999306
No it wasn't. The Winchester model 1897 was old enough to get into dirty movies and buy cigarettes by the time the war started.
>>29999077
They don't deflect it, they break it.
Sometimes they'd even detonate them.
A german stick grenade is thin enough that without it's shrapnel sleeve even a medium sized buckshot would open it right up, and maybe even disable or detonate the fuze.
>>30000000
>>29999045
accept no substitute.
>>29999155
>should of
RRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>29998896
Because they could be made significantly shorter and lighter than the Mausers, Enfields, and Springfields of the time.
>inb4 obrez
Only the Russians were that stupid, and those were civilian "freedom fighters" and not a uniformed military.
Also, a SxS or pump shotgun (both of which had existed for *at least* 30 years by that point) fired faster, even if they held the same or fewer rounds (kinda hard to argue with an Enfield's 10rd mag but everyone else was at 5).
It ABSOLUTELY FOR DAMN SURE wasn't because of "spread". Hell a current-production, 18" cylinder bore barrel shooting standard buckshot loads has a pattern of less than 1" inside 20 meters. And they were usually shooting people at a third of that distance.
>>29999045
>semi-auto rifle in world war one
No. Those didn't come about for anyone but the US until about 1944.
However, the US did buy and use a small number of lever-action rifles. Various units purchased 1892's, 1894's, and 1895's in a saddle-ring carbine configuration, which even with their 20" barrels made them almost 2 feet shorter than the issued bolt guns from all sides. Also, the US allowed some people to use personally owned weapons (though those were statistically irrelevant).
>>29999159
They used cardboard I think
>>29999337
No, at 10 feet it very definitely does not fucking spread. At fucking all. The wad still totally encapsulates the shot at 10 feet. Which means you have a whopping 0.40" bigger margin of error for hitting the guy compared to a .30cal rifle.
>>29999306
Man, you're a retard.
>>29998996
>>29998896
Alright. I have to assume you're noguns or at the very least don't own a bolt action rifle.
I want you to pretend you have a bolt action rifle and pretend you're working the bolt, shouldering it firing and repeating. Then I want you to look at pic related and imagine doing that in a trench. Then I want you to imagine working the pump on a shotgun in pic related. Bonus points if you can imagine a 1897 that fires every time you pump it as long as your finger stays on the trigger.
If you haven't reached what is a logical conclusion for most people, feel free to neck yourself.
>>29999337
>Except for a pump
You can just fucking make a pump action rifle.
>>29999337
>and the ability to miss and still nick the guy
Pic related. Wowee, you're really gaining such a humongous margin of error!
>>29999642
>>29999740
From the 1890s to post-WW2, slide action rifles were actually fairly common.
That said, the argument against shotguns is fucking retarded. Even the fastest cycling bolt action used by the Allies, the Enfield, was entirely outclassed by a 1897 in terms of cycling time. The 1897 falls behind in reloading, assuming that the Enfield user was using stripper clips.
I am also at a loss for the spread argument. At 16yds, I would expect a fiber wad buckshot load to spread 8-12" from a cylinder bore barrel under 24 inches. The advantage to using a shotgun isn't some magical room sweeping ability, it is the increased likelihood of effective pellet placement in a quick pointing and quick handling gun.
>>29999790
...huh.
Well fuck me. Okay then.
>>29999823
See
>>29999753
and
http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-20-buckshot-patterns/
At 20 yards from an 18" cylinder bore barrel a fiber-wad buckshot load will spread consistently 9-10".
>>29999832
don't worry, they were rare as shit, and were primarily used by the guys digging tunnels.
>>29998715
>>29999848
So it's even tighter than I thought, which goes back to my point about how this 5' foot room sweeping thing is CoD bullshit.
>>29999923
>So it's even tighter than I thought
>>29999923
Yeah. Wasn't sure if you were
>HURR SPREAD
guy or one of the several of us saying it's negligible.
Also, birdshot or any other load encapsulated in a modern-style plastic wad spreads significantly less than that. Some of the hunting-specific buckshot loads (the heavy-recoiling high velocity ones) are also plastic wad based because they need to pattern tight enough to put all their pellets in an 18" circle at 45y.
>>29999923
you're fucking retarded if you cant see how having a shotgun in a trench would be more useful than a rifle, jesus christ
>>29999306
are you literally retarded? reread his post
>>29999306
>>29999962
I was the one making the point about how a shotgun isn't useless and that they don't magically stop being effective at 5 feet.
>>29999306
this is fucking bait, hes just goofin, right?
>>30000016
sorry i meant the other cunt saying the retarded shit, my bad
>>29999306
>Model 1897 is anachronistic for 1914
Are you literally retarded?
>inb4 I was only pretending
>>29999670
The French would like to have a word with you.
Several reasons spring to mind. While a shotgun would probably be preferable to a full-sized rifle in a trench raid it would still likely be unwieldy. Grenades, pistols and melee weapons were used when possible. The second is logistical - fielding another weapon and another set of ammunition is difficult and costs a lot of money. For the European powers the First World War was their first taste of total war in decades if not centuries; they were stretched enough as it is with providing service rifles to their draftees. This also meant that, at least at the beginning when introducing a new service weapon may have been feasible, they were unfamiliar with trench warfare and still in the mindset of 'war as sport', this can be seen in their continued use of full-size rifles in a war where most engagements were within 300yd or so. Additionally, the opportunity cost of introducing a new class of weapons must be taken into account - that money could be spent on artillery which was a far more effective killer; introducing a shotgun (or carbine, submachine gun etc.) would probably have given their soldiers an advantage in man to man combat but it wouldn't have significantly altered the outcome of the war.
>>29999635
what the fuck
>>29999077
mythbusters did it, it worked
>>29999025
Didn't make the 712 until the 30s. get it right faggot.
>>29999369
6 year olds could buy cigarettes during that time.
>>29999155
That's not a European country
I was talking about the first half of the war from 1914-1916
