Would SMGs have broken the stalemate of ww1 if they arrived sooner

>>35077342

nO, NOT REALLY.

>>35077342
No except maybe in a few isolated incidents, since ww1 wasn't really won or lost with small arms.

The biggest problem in World War 1 was not taking trenches but holding them, as artillery were not able to move across the ruined ground fast enough and set up fast enough to prevent the enemy from retaking it. It wouldn't have been a very large difference, but may have helped

>>35077342
Mortars for one side, as well as better communication equipment would have helped way more.

>>35077841
>Trenches
Ww1 was fought with horses and machine guns you dork, did you even play bf1?

>>35077342
Rule #1 of War: Weapons don't win Wars

Also, the primary contributing factor of the stalemate wasn't really fighting in the trenches, which is what the SMG was designed for. The issue was getting to the Trench. And you would be just as fucked in the ass by Machine Gun nests whether you were carrying a Rifle or an SMG.

File: N stoff.png (20KB, 218x250px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 218x250px

I personally think the chemists went the wrong way with chemical weapons, they were so focused on poisoning troops that they never considered burning them out.

Imagine if they'd developed chlorine trifluoride: it's such a strong oxidiser that it burns materials that you'd traditionally consider flame retardant (e.g. asbestos quite happily ignites violently when exposed to it). A spill of it in the 50s burnt through a foot of concrete and 3 feet of gravel, an eyewitness reported "the concrete was on fire!". While this is happening, it's releasing elemental fluorine as well as plenty of fluorine compounds. Fire some of that at the enemy and you wouldn't even have to sweep up the bones as they'd be burnt to nothing as well.

>>35078000
Is it a gas or liquid?

>>35077971
>Weapons don't win wars
Remind me, I seem to have forgotten, which weapon was it that won the war in the Pacific?

>>35078127
It boils at 11C but the gas is heavier than air. It could easily be liquefied in a lightly pressurised container.

>>35078127
Variable depending on ambient pressure and temperatures. Typically a liquid.
>>35078000
They couldn't contain it back then as they had no real way to line the equipment used to make it.
Now if they would have had access to Nitrogen Mustard.... Different story

>>35078143
A massive shipbuilding disparity.

File: Carrier WW2.jpg (566KB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 3000x2400px

>>35078143
This >>35078178, if the tables turned and Japan had the economy and ressources of the US and the US those of Japan the better equipment wouldn't matter, also the fact that the US were in such a superior situation (untouchable mainland, vast ressources of every kind) made the undisturbed development and production of superior weapons possible in the first place.

>>35078143

Japan had already lost, the nukes were just the nail in the coffin.

>>35078178

In a world dominated by memes...

One anon, has the power of truth on his side.

HISTORY ANON 2: THE OVERDUE BOOGALOO

In theaters September 2017.

>>35078223
The nukes did serve an important purpose. Given the fact that the soviets were currently stomping damn near unopposed across Manchuria, likely with IS-3s, there was a very real threat of a communist North Japan occurring if we couldn't secure unconditional surrender before they got near mainland Japan. Now, this threat probably wasn't as pertinent as it could have been, but the nukes were a valuable tool in preventing the soviets from exploiting any time delay in communication in order to make last-minute gains that could have had severe consequences after the war.

But yes in the strictest sense, they didn't need to be dropped to win the war. We just needed to be a little less eager to drop them.

>>35078169
>They couldn't contain it back then as they had no real way to line the equipment used to make it.

Actually, you just need to slowly expose a standard steel vessel to fluorine to coat it with a layer of iron fluoride. The issue is that if the lining is damaged, the reaction is too aggressive to safely reform the lining so you'd definitely want a construction with multiple layers and impact absorbing cladding.

>>35078252
The USSR didn't have enough sea lift capacity to threaten the home islands.

>>35077342
Still got no mans land with mines, barbed wire, and sporadic mortar and artillery fire.

>>35077971
>Weapons don't win Wars
But they sure as hell caused a stalemate
Hmm, a bit of a contradiction there.

>>35078000
Calm down Lex luther

>>35077342
You mean because SMGs are so deadly against Arty and HMGs in bunkers? OF COURSE!

>>35078677
You cannot trust those gommies anyway.

>>35077841
So selfpropelled artillery would has won the war?

>>35079410
Put armor on it and what do you have?

But seriously, the disparity in industrial capacity won WW1

>>35079384
With proper tactics people still made it into the opposing trench, as another anon pointed out the problem came with holding the trench against counter attack. Having your men armed with small handheld machine guns would have given them an advantage no?