Why do you think....

[Clancy]

Gentlemen,
...that other countries did not seem to take work on a semi-automatic rifle as important as we did? The Military from around the world were working on all types of new things but not a massive change in their military rifle, the Infantry man's best friend.

Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read this data. I hope you learn some data.
Clancy
ps could use some hits
NRA Life Endowment
NRA Training Counselor
NRA Instructor
FSS 90% / BW X Speed Div by 1000 = PF

[VegasND]

Good question! I've wondered about this. Had Germany put some of the money wasted on 'superweapons' into ammo production and a good semi-auto rifle, that might have been enough to tip the balance in their favor. Someone more knowledgeable about the European mind of the early 20th century may be able to answer my question: "What was it about European powers and sem-auto rifles, were they thinking soldiers would waste ammo and cost too much, or did they think it was unnecessary and that they bolt was somehow superior?"

Thanks for the topic Clancy, along with all your info on the Garand.

--Dean

[Josh3239]

Well they did but they were far from perfect from what I understand. The Russians built the SVT and the Germans build a semi auto that I can't think of the name, Gewehr something.

I think the reason was because the Russians believed in overwhelming firepower so they probably believed a semi auto doesn't put out enough rounds quick enough.

And that is all I got.

[Satex]

Generals are as egotistical as it gets - that's how it used to be - that's how it still is. As such, they like to spend time and money on big ticket fancy weapons, smart bombs, super airplanes, ECM and such exotic technology that they perceive as giving them a distinct advantage. Just like when the F4 came out it had no air to air cannons, because "dog fights as we know it were out".
Just like McNamara and Cheney both thought that a "small, quick, advanced" military can bring decisive victory under any circumstances. Then, as now - reality taught them both a valuable lesson. Those who don't learn history are bound to repeat it!

[Spiggy]

to my understanding, the japanese did not have enough materials and industrial power to go into autoloading weapons for their basic infantry.

Plus, cultural and logistical issues come into play. They just went through the first non-tokugawa emperor that repealed the laws stating non-aristocrat citizens could not own swords. The bayonet was designed overall sword-like and when it was issued with rifles; made a gesture that now every soldier is almost nobility.

Logistically, they fought by attrition; overall not a good idea for an expanding small archipelago nation with very-very limited population- logically, if your men were supposed to suffer serious loss, wouldn't be worthwhile to give gomer pylomoto an expensive semi-automatic now would it!?

It wasn't even until late war did they attempt to fill gaps with submachine guns!

To be fair though, they were doing fine with not much resistance until they decided to piss off the US and the australian/new zealand colonies (Overall British Empire) Lets not even get into the Russians and Chinese

[Clancy]

Gentlemen,
I have reports and standard files that talk about the use for a semi-auto rifle and in one word the main reason was the "AIRPLANE". It was new in WW1 and its attack on Infantry was a very BIG reason for that semi. This gave ground units some type of defense against it. If you remember, not that long ago one of our NEW APACHE's was shot down by a group with AK-47's?? Reports in the late 1930's talk about how ground units went after target sleeves towed by aircraft with many hits thus giving the guys on the ground a chance to get through an air attack with some confidence. As to the time to build and test and get into production well, that's what my BOOKS ARE ALL ABOUT. Testing started before the ink was dry ending WW1. My books don't tell you what goes where it tells you how it got to be there in the first place.
Thanks again guys this is just what I try to do get you to think and get into it.
Clancy

[dustoff31]

Gentlemen,
...that other countries did not seem to take work on a semi-automatic rifle as important as we did?

In the case of Germany up to and including WW II, their infantry tactics were based on the advancement of the MG. That is to say their thinking was that the infantrymen supported the MG, whereas the US believed the MG supported the infantry.

In the German army of that time MG 34/42s were assigned down to the squad level. So from their point of view, why would guys lying next to an MG firing 800/1200 rpm, need a semi-auto rifle? They are after all just protecting the MG crew.