> we could have seen a very different infantry landscape in late-WW1
but there were plenty automatic rifle designs by the ww2, still most infantry used bolt action rifles, likely bottleneck was in reliable mass manufacturing.
Yeah, they were stuck with what they had tooling for. That was specifically brought up in the case of the Red Army: they had designs, but they couldn't possibly supply the numbers. Not after the purges, and then the utterly preposterous losses of 1941-1942. Which, well, a lot of that was the purges. It forced them to re-equip the whole Red Army three times over.
I guess without the purges, a whole lot changes. It's a huge wildcard in the alternate history.
Also, doctrine, logistics, the everything . . just didn't know what to do with a infantry platoon when everyone has a machine gun. It screwed up the machine . . and, let's be honest, the infantryman's small arm is a teensy tiny minority of where casualties come from. Even back in 1941. Far better to keep the big wheel turning with motorized transport, artillery, aircraft.
1. Militaries generally feared their soldiers using too much ammo. Eg the magazine Lee Enfield was only supplied with one magazine, and early on was only intended to be fired single shot with the magazine used in an emergency.
2. Cost. You see all kinds of conversion proposals to update bolt action rifles for this reason. I believe the French actually updated flintlock rifles all the way up to breach loaders rather than buying new.
but there were plenty automatic rifle designs by the ww2, still most infantry used bolt action rifles, likely bottleneck was in reliable mass manufacturing.