Infantry Discussion Thread 9: Parabellum [NO KAIJU]

[Bereia]

If you're actually drawing an Army pistol in wartime something has gone wrong.

If you're grabbing a fallen buddy's Army pistol in wartime to shoot because your Army pistol has run out of ammo, something has gone apocalyptically wrong.

That said you probably want the ability to get new magazines or at least ammo from the unit armorer.

In war, shit has been known to happen from time to time. Having a pistol is a solid idea, if only for emergencies.

[Allanea]

If you're actually drawing an Army pistol in wartime something has gone wrong.

If you're grabbing a fallen buddy's Army pistol in wartime to shoot because your Army pistol has run out of ammo, something has gone apocalyptically wrong.

That said you probably want the ability to get new magazines or at least ammo from the unit armorer.

In war, shit has been known to happen from time to time. Having a pistol is a solid idea, if only for emergencies.

Having a pistol is a solid idea.

But, frankly, any decent pistol will do.

With a few exceptions of special forces, pistols are mostly given in military forces to people who are rarely ever expected to use guns, but where it is inappropriate to have them unarmed. (Say, senior officers.)

IDF officers have the option of buying their own pistol or carrying a rifle. Most people who are not expected to be in combat do the former.

[Bereia]

But, frankly, any decent pistol will do.

I agree. The operative word here is "decent," of course. Picking up a piece of shit is not sound practice.

With a few exceptions of special forces, pistols are mostly given in military forces to people who are rarely ever expected to use guns, but where it is inappropriate to have them unarmed. (Say, senior officers.)

Depends on the military, actually. In the United States, for example, these days it is common to see the line grunts carrying pistols as a backup in addition to their service rifles.

IDF officers have the option of buying their own pistol or carrying a rifle. Most people who are not expected to be in combat do the former.

A sound idea. A pistol is a secondary weapon. It exists mainly to keep you alive until you can reach/repair/replace/reload your rifle.

[Allanea]

The US military - I think it's primarily the Marines - is fairly unique in its approach to pistols.

[Bereia]

The US military - I think it's primarily the Marines - is fairly unique in its approach to pistols.

It's the Army too anymore, and my understanding is that it is intended as a safety measure due to the increasing focus on urban warfare.

[Purpelia]

Back in the 1850's and 60's rifles were pretty much a standard item in western militaries. But handguns, in particular those used by officers were still mostly private purchase. So just how much standardization was there? Like would you see one official handgun or several official ones or several official ones and a score of private purchase whatevers? And would it have been too out of place for my military, having just been united from no less than 7 separate forces to look at a handgun related mess and go "Fuck it. We are standardizing on one item and let's be done with it!"

You would probably have one standardised pattern for your cavalry troopers (or two if you still have separate light and heavy cavalry kits).
As to forcing that on officers it could be done at the time, it was certainly starting to happen with swords. Of course if officers are still buying thier own pistols then you would still see a fair bit of variation in terms of decoration and some features in standard pattern pistols.

For those interested I am trying to figure out an IC justification to standardize on a needlefire revolver in the period. And "7 armies merged bringing with them like 30 patterns of private purchase and we just had to do something to fix that mess" sounds decently plausible to me or something.

[Imperializt Russia]

The US military - I think it's primarily the Marines - is fairly unique in its approach to pistols.

It's the Army too anymore, and my understanding is that it is intended as a safety measure due to the increasing focus on urban warfare.

I don't particularly see why. In urban fighting, your opponent will be using rifles and machine guns, so your handgun has a manoeuvring advantage from less size, weight and bulk, but a distinct disadvantage in firepower and capacity, especially if your opponent issues stout body armour.

You will be able to make any real urban battle situation "work" with a combination of rifles, shotguns, machine guns and grenades, as well as supporting arms.

What "safety measure" is issuing handguns (at the potential cost of several rifle magazines) intended to address?

[Puzikas]

Handguns are trash.

why do people keep posting the Wolverine ;_;

Except this one.

[Crookfur]

You would probably have one standardised pattern for your cavalry troopers (or two if you still have separate light and heavy cavalry kits).
As to forcing that on officers it could be done at the time, it was certainly starting to happen with swords. Of course if officers are still buying thier own pistols then you would still see a fair bit of variation in terms of decoration and some features in standard pattern pistols.

For those interested I am trying to figure out an IC justification to standardize on a needlefire revolver in the period. And "7 armies merged bringing with them like 30 patterns of private purchase and we just had to do something to fix that mess" sounds decently plausible to me or something.

Just make it clear to officers that they can bring what they like but the army will only stock 7mm needle fire ammo.

Thus those who really care about having a nice effective side arm will still be able to bring thier colts, remingtons and Adams etc as long as they supply thier own ammo whilst every other office will settle for what few 7mm needle fire pistols are available. You could also warrant or commission certain gun makers as recommended places to purchase your side arm

[Purpelia]

Just make it clear to officers that they can bring what they like but the army will only stock 7mm needle fire ammo.

Thus those who really care about having a nice effective side arm will still be able to bring thier colts, remingtons and Adams etc as long as they supply thier own ammo whilst every other office will settle for what few 7mm needle fire pistols are available. You could also warrant or commission certain gun makers as recommended places to purchase your side arm

And this would be plausible for the time period, yes?

Also, an unintended consequence of the standardization process (well, unintended IC but EXTREMELY INTENDED OOC) is that it is supposed to explain the sharp decline of the domestic firearms industry. Suddenly you had not 7 duchies ordering from local manufacturers but one ordering from its own arsenals. And this made all major manufacturers go bust or switch to hunting weapons thus allowing the 1900's harsh firearms laws to go through without much fuss. Sound plausible?

[Allanea]

The thing is, in the real world, firearms industry lobbying isn't really what keeps gun laws lax. In my experience in the gun activism world getting money from firearms industry things is like squeezing blood from a stone.

Really what keeps this stuff happening is having a large amount of the general public that's for some reason interested in owning guns. [Yes in theory there are people who don't own guns but are interested in the issue on principle, like myself, but histocially it's people who own guns for whatever reason that are the motor.]

[Crookfur]

Just make it clear to officers that they can bring what they like but the army will only stock 7mm needle fire ammo.

Thus those who really care about having a nice effective side arm will still be able to bring thier colts, remingtons and Adams etc as long as they supply thier own ammo whilst every other office will settle for what few 7mm needle fire pistols are available. You could also warrant or commission certain gun makers as recommended places to purchase your side arm

And this would be plausible for the time period, yes?

Also, an unintended consequence of the standardization process (well, unintended IC but EXTREMELY INTENDED OOC) is that it is supposed to explain the sharp decline of the domestic firearms industry. Suddenly you had not 7 duchies ordering from local manufacturers but one ordering from its own arsenals. And this made all major manufacturers go bust or switch to hunting weapons thus allowing the 1900's harsh firearms laws to go through without much fuss. Sound plausible?

Yes it would, it's what most militaries were doing.

I honestly don't see it driving that many companies straight out of business. A diverse market is going to mean lots of small manufacturers. Post standardisation a few will go to the wall but most will enter a period of consolidation and mergers and the there will still be business for them. An armory simply can't increase its output 7 times so a lot of the work will either need to contracted out or spread across multiple contracts with different suppliers and this will allow a number of smaller shops to grow and become competitive with your central armory.

It would be keeping gun producers small without a single unified voice that would ease any regulations rather than the formation of larger concerns with more cash and influence to throw around.
This of course assumes you let the market develop rather than just force an effective state monopoly on military arms supply which is what I think you really mean to do.

Also what Allanea said.

[Purpelia]

Basically the way I want to handle this is that the unification is an act of the Arch Duke to try and ensure all military power is centralized with the government. And a large part of that is founding (no matter the cost!) state owned arsenals to handle all military orders. And this combined with the large number of old military surplus weapons (all mismatched items from the old inventories really) hitting the market for peanuts effectively destroys the private firearms industry because what civilian demand exists is just flooded with cheap surplus weapons.

This whole thing by the way is taking place right after essentially an economic bubble bursting back in the 1840's. You can check more on that here. So a lot of those businesses would already be shaky and only really worked because each duke wanted to make sure his army can be well equipped from his lands. And so they kept paying uneconomic prices and borrowing money to do it just to keep up prestige.

[Gallia-]

The US military - I think it's primarily the Marines - is fairly unique in its approach to pistols.

well there's this dude from yugoslavia



dude might be an officer tho

[Puzikas]

My experience has generally been that the pistol is a duty weapon for MP, security teams, and individuals who, as Allanea said, do not need a rifle but should probably not go unarmed. In addition, heavy weapons crews and teams rightly should have pistols as well, but really can, and do, carry carbines or standard rifles.

As I've covered the weight of a M9 and magazine load is worth more as rifle ammunition to the standard rifleman, because more shooting means less (of your guys) dying.

5.56x45mm makes a wound cavity about 4 times larger than 9x19mm at 7 meters anyways so it's not like pistol bullets have some magical incapacitating ability at close range rifles don't. Really there isn't anything wrong with issuing pistols I suppose-but there's no real particular advantage in either direction for it.
Special Forces types that cary pistols do it because they go out of there way to be sure things go platinum bad to ensure victory.
Officers and MPs have them for self protection and, in MP cases, to exercise use of force in an environment where the general population is disarmed (Military bases). When the population is armed, you'll note out comes the rifles.

And this combined with the large number of old military surplus weapons (all mismatched items from the old inventories really) hitting the market for peanuts effectively destroys the private firearms industry because what civilian demand exists is just flooded with cheap surplus weapons.

Didn't happen in America, wouldn't happen anywhere else.
Plenty of people have exactly zero interest in MilSurp, cheap or not. It's not like you'll saturate the market with small arms so heavily it just downright collapses-Even state arsenals source parts from civilian concerns. Like, literally all the time. Bern, Spandau, Erfurt, Bofors, Enfeild, Rock Island, Tula, they all licence(d) parts from local civilian machine shops: Most of the stocks used by the Erfurt arsenal over a two year period were made but a local furniture shop. Rock Island ended up letting Winchester Make more rifles than they did.
If you're tying to use it for some civilian regulation of firearms just degrade yourself to a socialist hellhole and pass legislation indicating to go against the party is to go against the proletariat and the party says you don't need guns or something. Because honestly the best way to make people surrender their guns is not to arm MORE people.

[Eisarn-Ara]

My experience has generally been that the pistol is a duty weapon for MP, security teams, and individuals who, as Allanea said, do not need a rifle but should probably not go unarmed. In addition, heavy weapons crews and teams rightly should have pistols as well, but really can, and do, carry carbines or standard rifles.

As I've covered the weight of a M9 and magazine load is worth more as rifle ammunition to the standard rifleman, because more shooting means less (of your guys) dying.

Excellent point, though I reckon finding that fine line between pistol, machine pistol & PDW and boiling it down into a lightweight platform with equally lightweight ammunition could benefit all parties involved when it comes down to both arms procurement & unit-by-unit distribution.

[EsToVnIa]

originally was going to be brass-based for laziness

then i remember PDW-R had the forward mid-ejection

futuru "cyberpunk" PDW-R can now be proper bullpup LSAT

[Eisarn-Ara]

That's pretty fuckin' based, GG.

[Purpelia]

Didn't happen in America, wouldn't happen anywhere else.

But america had a decent demand to begin with. Purpelia is going to be more like European nations where most of the demand is either for hunting rifles or for fancy, decorated handguns for the rich and the overall demand is small to begin with. It's not like I have the wild west frontier to sell to.

Plenty of people have exactly zero interest in MilSurp, cheap or not. It's not like you'll saturate the market with small arms so heavily it just downright collapses-Even state arsenals source parts from civilian concerns. Like, literally all the time. Bern, Spandau, Erfurt, Bofors, Enfeild, Rock Island, Tula, they all licence(d) parts from local civilian machine shops: Most of the stocks used by the Erfurt arsenal over a two year period were made but a local furniture shop. Rock Island ended up letting Winchester Make more rifles than they did.

Basically the idea is that most of the arms companies and even small suppliers were riding on the bubble of dukes who were willing to pay any amount just to get their army to out compete the neighbor. So like if you had a 10$ rifle and charged 50$ for it the duke would just borrow money and pay 50$. And manufacturers knew this so they fixed prices. And than the bubble burst.

If you're tying to use it for some civilian regulation of firearms just degrade yourself to a socialist hellhole and pass legislation indicating to go against the party is to go against the proletariat and the party says you don't need guns or something. Because honestly the best way to make people surrender their guns is not to arm MORE people.

The people wouldn't be heavily armed to begin with. But the intent here is not to disarm the people by crushing the industry. It's to explain the complete lack of private concerns in all my future firearm designs. As in, there just is no private firearms industry in Purpelia because of X.

But yea, I am totally going to legislate it to hell. Basically I want to implement a firearm law at the start of the 20th century that among other things bans all civilians from owning any class of weapon currently in military stockpiles. So like for as long as the army has a drum somewhere with cosmoline in it and a single bolt action civilians can't own any bolt actions. And yes, it is intentionally badly thought out. It is in fact easier today for civilians to get a permit for BAR equivalent than a glock because the handgun is still classified as a military weapon and the BAR is obsolete.

[Gallia-]

(Image)

originally was going to be brass-based for laziness

then i remember PDW-R had the forward mid-ejection

futuru "cyberpunk" PDW-R can now be proper bullpup LSAT

why isnt it bottlenecked?

lsat action is also dead

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

My experience has generally been that the pistol is a duty weapon for MP, security teams, and individuals who, as Allanea said, do not need a rifle but should probably not go unarmed. In addition, heavy weapons crews and teams rightly should have pistols as well, but really can, and do, carry carbines or standard rifles.

As I've covered the weight of a M9 and magazine load is worth more as rifle ammunition to the standard rifleman, because more shooting means less (of your guys) dying.

5.56x45mm makes a wound cavity about 4 times larger than 9x19mm at 7 meters anyways so it's not like pistol bullets have some magical incapacitating ability at close range rifles don't. Really there isn't anything wrong with issuing pistols I suppose-but there's no real particular advantage in either direction for it.
Special Forces types that cary pistols do it because they go out of there way to be sure things go platinum bad to ensure victory.
Officers and MPs have them for self protection and, in MP cases, to exercise use of force in an environment where the general population is disarmed (Military bases). When the population is armed, you'll note out comes the rifles.

And this combined with the large number of old military surplus weapons (all mismatched items from the old inventories really) hitting the market for peanuts effectively destroys the private firearms industry because what civilian demand exists is just flooded with cheap surplus weapons.

Didn't happen in America, wouldn't happen anywhere else.
Plenty of people have exactly zero interest in MilSurp, cheap or not. It's not like you'll saturate the market with small arms so heavily it just downright collapses-Even state arsenals source parts from civilian concerns. Like, literally all the time. Bern, Spandau, Erfurt, Bofors, Enfeild, Rock Island, Tula, they all licence(d) parts from local civilian machine shops: Most of the stocks used by the Erfurt arsenal over a two year period were made but a local furniture shop. Rock Island ended up letting Winchester Make more rifles than they did.
If you're tying to use it for some civilian regulation of firearms just degrade yourself to a socialist hellhole and pass legislation indicating to go against the party is to go against the proletariat and the party says you don't need guns or something. Because honestly the best way to make people surrender their guns is not to arm MORE people.

general populations disarmed in military bases? you mean like on home turf?

[Puzikas]

But america had a decent demand to begin with. Purpelia is going to be more like European nations where most of the demand is either for hunting rifles or for fancy, decorated handguns for the rich and the overall demand is small to begin with. It's not like I have the wild west frontier to sell to.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of European gun owners and American gun owners.
I've been both-theres really very little difference in culture. Germanic and centeral European firearms owners especially just as passionate of their small arms and the regulations and laws placed on them as Americans are-and that's not abnormal. Guns in Centeral Europe outside of large population centers have generally always been part of life just as they were in the US: they were still for hunting, for defense against marauding brigands, and for sports shooting just the same parallel as they were in the US since always. The departure of the twos firearms policies start in Europe around 1923 and diverges in a lot of countires from there, but in others it remains pretty much similar to Americas right up the modern era.

There was plenty of demand for elegant sporting files in both-how do you suppose Holland and Holland, a company who has NEVER made a firearm for mass adoption and who's cheapest offerings exceed $20,000USD and take 8 months to complete, has stayed in business?
If the demand is for sporting arms, why would the sporting arms companies suddenly close down because MilSurp floods the market? Surely these heavily used military rifles would be far less useful for hunting in their released from arsenal form than a newly made rifle, with a shiny new barrel?
It just doesn't make sense for me. If you want to create a environment in which there's little interest in civilian ownership of weapons, have dukes decide to consolidate power they and their armies should be the only ones who may own firearms.

Basically the idea is that most of the arms companies and even small suppliers were riding on the bubble of dukes who were willing to pay any amount just to get their army to out compete the neighbor. So like if you had a 10$ rifle and charged 50$ for it the duke would just borrow money and pay 50$.

Usually war profiteering makes money.
That's also not a bubble, that's overspending. The money they make by fixing prices doesn't actually hurt them usually. The Eibar region of Spain is actually a great example of what happens when nearly EXACTLY what you described happens in real life: The French, desperate for small arms in WWI, used the Eibar region of Spain to produce pistols for contract, and consequently the Eibar and ergo the Basque region became a damn small arms and metal fabrication manufacturing mecca. It had been known for decades as a small arms hub but quickly became one of the largest makes of small arms in all of Europe due to the war, and their artificial price inflation of small arms.
I mean, they crashed, but civil wars and awful economic policy do that.

The people wouldn't be heavily armed to begin with. But the intent here is not to disarm the people by crushing the industry. It's to explain the complete lack of private concerns in all my future firearm designs. As in, there just is no private firearms industry in Purpelia because of X.

Ah

The best bet then is to simy have the government seize control of the plants and turn them into arsenals, or have some sort of industrial revolution and implement Maoist great keep backforward policies that turn the plants into automotive or train or aeroplane plants or something, making a nation leave behind its "barbaric" roots for a vision of the future or something.

It's like communist Russia and China had a German baby raised by Italians!

And yes, it is intentionally badly thought out. It is in fact easier today for civilians to get a permit for BAR equivalent than a glock because the handgun is still classified as a military weapon and the BAR is obsolete.

That's so Italian/French it hurts
I have a French friend who can't own a standard AR-15 because lafronce uses 5.56x45mm, but he CAN own one in .223 Wylde. Literally nothing stops him from firing 5.56 out of the rifle, but it just can't say "Caliber 5.56mm NATO" on the rifle.
Or Caliber: MULTI I think??
Also I think you can own RSC 1917/1918s in France with like no restrictions but youre fucked if you want a MAS-36 because lafronce uses 7.5x54mm still.

general populations disarmed in military bases? you mean like on home turf?

Yes.
And many overseas bases.
Troops arent generally walking around bases with weapons, or even if they have weapons, probably not LOADED weapons.

[EsToVnIa]

(Image)

originally was going to be brass-based for laziness

then i remember PDW-R had the forward mid-ejection

futuru "cyberpunk" PDW-R can now be proper bullpup LSAT

why isnt it bottlenecked?

lsat action is also dead

is it supposed to be bottlenecked now?

[Purpelia]

Usually war profiteering makes money.
That's also not a bubble, that's overspending. The money they make by fixing prices doesn't actually hurt them usually. The Eibar region of Spain is actually a great example of what happens when nearly EXACTLY what you described happens in real life: The French, desperate for small arms in WWI, used the Eibar region of Spain to produce pistols for contract, and consequently the Eibar and ergo the Basque region became a damn small arms and metal fabrication manufacturing mecca. It had been known for decades as a small arms hub but quickly became one of the largest makes of small arms in all of Europe due to the war, and their artificial price inflation of small arms.
I mean, they crashed, but civil wars and awful economic policy do that.

For the record, this whole thing is supposed to happen as a direct result of a market crash to begin with. You can read it all in the post I linked to a few posts back.

But a TLDR is that my army only gets unified in the first plce because the market crashed. Well, a 19th century equivalent of that anyway. Basically when the industrial revolution came the dukes borrowed money to fuel an industrial revolution and become fabulously rich in the process (or so they thought) but instead got caught up in spending on the 19th century equivalent of the dot-com bubble. And when it turned out that if you throw money at everyone with a promise and a glint in his eye you will in fact NOT get your money back (only a bunch of very badly run and not profitable smoke and mirror factories) the guy holding their debts said "now you sign this little constitution of mine that centralizes the country more."

Ah

The best bet then is to simy have the government seize control of the plants and turn them into arsenals, or have some sort of industrial revolution and implement Maoist great keep backforward policies that turn the plants into automotive or train or aeroplane plants or something, making a nation leave behind its "barbaric" roots for a vision of the future or something.

It's like communist Russia and China had a German baby raised by Italians!

Basically part of the process of collecting on what could not be paid back was that the government arsenals impounded firearms manufacturers that could not pay their debts. And flooded the market with cheap surplus whilst completely gutting military orders just to make the whole affair that extra bit harder.

That's so Italian/French it hurts

I have a French friend who can't own a standard AR-15 because lafronce uses 5.56x45mm, but he CAN own one in .223 Wylde. Literally nothing stops him from firing 5.56 out of the rifle, but it just can't say "Caliber 5.56mm NATO" on the rifle.
Or Caliber: MULTI I think??
Also I think you can own RSC 1917/1918s in France with like no restrictions but youre fucked if you want a MAS-36 because lafronce uses 7.5x54mm still.

One of these days I am actually going to do a brief editorial on Purpelian firearm laws just to give you guys something to cringe at and laugh about.

[Gallia-]

But america had a decent demand to begin with. Purpelia is going to be more like European nations where most of the demand is either for hunting rifles or for fancy, decorated handguns for the rich and the overall demand is small to begin with. It's not like I have the wild west frontier to sell to.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of European gun owners and American gun owners.
I've been both-theres really very little difference in culture. Germanic and centeral European firearms owners especially just as passionate of their small arms and the regulations and laws placed on them as Americans are-and that's not abnormal. Guns in Centeral Europe outside of large population centers have generally always been part of life just as they were in the US: they were still for hunting, for defense against marauding brigands, and for sports shooting just the same parallel as they were in the US since always. The departure of the twos firearms policies start in Europe around 1923 and diverges in a lot of countires from there, but in others it remains pretty much similar to Americas right up the modern era.

There was plenty of demand for elegant sporting files in both-how do you suppose Holland and Holland, a company who has NEVER made a firearm for mass adoption and who's cheapest offerings exceed $20,000USD and take 8 months to complete, has stayed in business?
If the demand is for sporting arms, why would the sporting arms companies suddenly close down because MilSurp floods the market? Surely these heavily used military rifles would be far less useful for hunting in their released from arsenal form than a newly made rifle, with a shiny new barrel?
It just doesn't make sense for me. If you want to create a environment in which there's little interest in civilian ownership of weapons, have dukes decide to consolidate power they and their armies should be the only ones who may own firearms.

if you outlaw guns only you will have guns?

or does the army and maybe police count as outlaws because they enforce the coercive extortion racket (also known as "taxes") of the state upon its citizenry?