NS infantry discussion thread. Mark II

[Aqizithiuda]

6.6x44mm Beowulf

(Image)

11.2mm base diameter

11.2mm rim diameter

6.8mm bullet diameter

7.2mm neck diameter

10.8mm shoulder diameter (where the shoulder begins)

1.1mm rim thickness

25.4mm bullet length

43.8mm case length

61.3mm total length

Centerfire, Berdan primer

Wall thickness 0.4mm (I couldn't find any data on how thick normal walls are, so I went with how thick the walls were on the first drawing, not sure if right)

I have no idea what the case capacity would be

The 6.6 Beowulf is loosely based on the 7.62x39, I started with the rough dimensions of the X39 case and then worked from there.

it has a lead core, copper jacket and air gap.

ICly, created in 1910 and issued in 1911.

Opinions?

The neck is too long, the meplat too sharp, the nose not particularly aerodynamic, the boat tail too shallow of an angle, the web (area of the cartridge just above the rim groove) should be rounded as it transitions from the case wall to the base of the cartridge, the case walls should be at least 0.4mm at the shoulder and 0.8mm where the webbing begins, the case taper could be improved if you made the neck 10.6mm in diameter, and the projectile should also have a 0.4-0.8mm thick jacket (I use 0.6mm).

Samo is also wrong about the neck thickness needing to be twice the thickness of the jacket. It actually just needs to be thinner than it is at the neck.

Normally I'd link a RL example or one of my own drawings, but if you do a google image search for "cartridge case drawing dimensions", you should get a couple of drawings with dimensions in the first few pages.

[Imperializt Russia]

It was a rule of thumb that was offered on Linc between Sen and others in a cartridge design thread.
I assumed anyway that it was more an aesthetic point than serving a needed function.

Though I did get the numbers the wrong way round, as apparently, it ought to be half the thickness of the jacket for neck walls.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Normally I'd link a RL example or one of my own drawings, but if you do a google image search for "cartridge case drawing dimensions", you should get a couple of drawings with dimensions in the first few pages.

I've got it

[Imperializt Russia]

Alternatively, figure out some Spanish (or just find the search bar) and use Municion.org

So use.

[Vorkova]

Is there any reason to have separate mechanised and armoured divisions? I'm buildings tanks by the thousands so I could easily equip each division with around one hundred.

[The Akasha Colony]

Is there any reason to have separate mechanised and armoured divisions? I'm buildings tanks by the thousands so I could easily equip each division with around one hundred.

It's a matter of choice and doctrine. The US now operates combined arms brigades, each composed of mixed battalions of armor (Abrams) and mechanized infantry (Bradleys). Substituting one for the other in a formation creates tradeoffs, and it is a matter of doctrine as to whether these tradeoffs are acceptable in practice.

[Vorkova]

Is there any reason to have separate mechanised and armoured divisions? I'm buildings tanks by the thousands so I could easily equip each division with around one hundred.

It's a matter of choice and doctrine. The US now operates combined arms brigades, each composed of mixed battalions of armor (Abrams) and mechanized infantry (Bradleys). Substituting one for the other in a formation creates tradeoffs, and it is a matter of doctrine as to whether these tradeoffs are acceptable in practice.

I was thinking about forming a division out of three brigades, with 6,000 soldiers and 40 tanks in each. My doctrine is quality over quantity so I can reduce the numbers if need be.

Sound reasonable?

[The Akasha Colony]

It's a matter of choice and doctrine. The US now operates combined arms brigades, each composed of mixed battalions of armor (Abrams) and mechanized infantry (Bradleys). Substituting one for the other in a formation creates tradeoffs, and it is a matter of doctrine as to whether these tradeoffs are acceptable in practice.

I was thinking about forming a division out of three brigades, with 6,000 soldiers and 40 tanks in each. My doctrine is quality over quantity so I can reduce the numbers if need be.

Sound reasonable?

6,000 men is relatively large for a brigade; even US brigade combat teams, which include artillery and support elements to act on their own, are smaller.

[Ardavia]

@Aqi

Thanks.

Anyway, this bullet was designed in a universe that invented the Minie ball 20 years ago, so the aerodynamics are far from optimal, also, working on correcting the other problems.

It might be up tomorrow.

[Immoren]

It's a matter of choice and doctrine. The US now operates combined arms brigades, each composed of mixed battalions of armor (Abrams) and mechanized infantry (Bradleys). Substituting one for the other in a formation creates tradeoffs, and it is a matter of doctrine as to whether these tradeoffs are acceptable in practice.

I was thinking about forming a division out of three brigades, with 6,000 soldiers and 40 tanks in each. My doctrine is quality over quantity so I can reduce the numbers if need be.

Sound reasonable?

Completely reasonable. Although divisions are going to be big. Only real life country with such large brigades is Finland, and those brigades are not part of divisions and directly part of the corps HQ instead. As Finnish army lacks divisions.

[Vorkova]

I was thinking about forming a division out of three brigades, with 6,000 soldiers and 40 tanks in each. My doctrine is quality over quantity so I can reduce the numbers if need be.

Sound reasonable?

Completely reasonable. Although divisions are going to be big. Only real life country with such large brigades is Finland, and those brigades are not part of divisions and directly part of the corps HQ instead. As Finnish army lacks divisions.

I could probably bypass the divisional level and just merge my brigades into corps, but I like to delegate as much power as possible. I was thinking three divisions would form a corps, which comes out at around 54,000 troops.

[Vorkova]

I was thinking about forming a division out of three brigades, with 6,000 soldiers and 40 tanks in each. My doctrine is quality over quantity so I can reduce the numbers if need be.

Sound reasonable?

6,000 men is relatively large for a brigade; even US brigade combat teams, which include artillery and support elements to act on their own, are smaller.

I could probably reduce it to 5,000 troops, but I'd prefer to keep it at 6,000 if possible.

[The Akasha Colony]

I could probably reduce it to 5,000 troops, but I'd prefer to keep it at 6,000 if possible.

Why the attachment to 6,000?

I could probably bypass the divisional level and just merge my brigades into corps, but I like to delegate as much power as possible. I was thinking three divisions would form a corps, which comes out at around 54,000 troops.

Organizational levels exist for a reason. In any event, you don't simply multiply the number of men in a unit to get the next highest unit, since this ignores all of the command and support staff that gets added at higher levels. Your three-division corps will be closer to 70,000-80,000 men and your divisions closer to 20,000 men.

[Vorkova]

I could probably reduce it to 5,000 troops, but I'd prefer to keep it at 6,000 if possible.

Why the attachment to 6,000?

It's what my brigades came out at when I calculated the numbers a while back. Saved a detailed composition in notepad but it was lost when I reformatted my computer recently.

I could probably bypass the divisional level and just merge my brigades into corps, but I like to delegate as much power as possible. I was thinking three divisions would form a corps, which comes out at around 54,000 troops.

Organizational levels exist for a reason. In any event, you don't simply multiply the number of men in a unit to get the next highest unit, since this ignores all of the command and support staff that gets added at higher levels. Your three-division corps will be closer to 70,000-80,000 men and your divisions closer to 20,000 men.

I'm leaving out support staff until I sort out concrete numbers for them.

[Aqizithiuda]

@Aqi

Thanks.

Anyway, this bullet was designed in a universe that invented the Minie ball 20 years ago, so the aerodynamics are far from optimal, also, working on correcting the other problems.

It might be up tomorrow.

In that case, you shouldn't even be using a case like that, if you're even using a case at all.

[Ardavia]

@Aqi

Thanks.

Anyway, this bullet was designed in a universe that invented the Minie ball 20 years ago, so the aerodynamics are far from optimal, also, working on correcting the other problems.

It might be up tomorrow.

In that case, you shouldn't even be using a case like that, if you're even using a case at all.

It's the first metal case we've invented.

The precursor was Minie balls in paper cartridges, preceded by paper cartridges with musket balls.

One of our newly discovered IC neighbours (on the other side of a sea the size of the atlantic), has had cartridges of metal for 50 years though, but we just discovered them.

[Bezombia]

In that case, you shouldn't even be using a case like that, if you're even using a case at all.

It's the first metal case we've invented.

The precursor was Minie balls in paper cartridges, preceded by paper cartridges with musket balls.

One of our newly discovered IC neighbours (on the other side of a sea the size of the atlantic), has had cartridges of metal for 50 years though, but we just discovered them.

The first cases were rimmed and not bottlenecked at all.

[Ardavia]

It's the first metal case we've invented.

The precursor was Minie balls in paper cartridges, preceded by paper cartridges with musket balls.

One of our newly discovered IC neighbours (on the other side of a sea the size of the atlantic), has had cartridges of metal for 50 years though, but we just discovered them.

The first cases were rimmed and not bottlenecked at all.

Alright, so my explanations make no sense, and I'm wrong etc.

It's pretty much this world's version of the .303 Enfield without a rim, and intended to serve like that.

[Bezombia]

Also it'd be hard to base a cartridge introduced in 1911 off of a cartridge introduced in 1943.

[Imperializt Russia]

Is there any reason to have separate mechanised and armoured divisions? I'm buildings tanks by the thousands so I could easily equip each division with around one hundred.

Armoured Divisions gives you a much stronger spearhead for an assault, by being focused around its firepower than its mobility and capability.

The Armoured (Tank) Division of the Soviet Union gave you 300 tanks in regiments plus the forty tanks of its Motor Rifle Regiment. The Mechanised (Motor Rifle) Division offered 100 tanks in a Tank Regiment and the 120 tanks of the three Motor Rifle Regiments.

[Ardavia]

Also it'd be hard to base a cartridge introduced in 1911 off of a cartridge introduced in 1943.

I looked at the x39 for inspiration when I made the first drawing... xd

[Vorkova]

Is there any reason to have separate mechanised and armoured divisions? I'm buildings tanks by the thousands so I could easily equip each division with around one hundred.

Armoured Divisions gives you a much stronger spearhead for an assault, by being focused around its firepower than its mobility and capability.

The Armoured (Tank) Division of the Soviet Union gave you 300 tanks in regiments plus the forty tanks of its Motor Rifle Regiment. The Mechanised (Motor Rifle) Division offered 100 tanks in a Tank Regiment and the 120 tanks of the three Motor Rifle Regiments.

Huh. That's... quite a lot of tanks, and exactly what I need! Thank you, I shall use the USSR's divisions as a base for mine.

[Bezombia]

Also it'd be hard to base a cartridge introduced in 1911 off of a cartridge introduced in 1943.

I looked at the x39 for inspiration when I made the first drawing... xd

Intermediates didn't exist even in IRL 1911 yet. It'd be thirty years before the first intermediate was used.
A cartridge with a bullet smaller than 7mm was almost unheard of, and the Japanese replaced 6.8 Arisaka with 7.7 Arisaka once it started to see combat use.

Especially if, in your timeline, it's just after the Mini ball was invented. Honestly at that time, anything lower than a .50 would be considered radically small, and besides, powders weren't advanced enough to give bullets like that any meaningful velocity.

[Ardavia]

I looked at the x39 for inspiration when I made the first drawing... xd

Intermediates didn't exist even in IRL 1911 yet. It'd be thirty years before the first intermediate was used.
A cartridge with a bullet smaller than 7mm was almost unheard of, and the Japanese replaced 6.8 Arisaka with 7.7 Arisaka once it started to see combat use.

Especially if, in your timeline, it's just after the Mini ball was invented. Honestly at that time, anything lower than a .50 would be considered radically small, and besides, powders weren't advanced enough to give bullets like that any meaningful velocity.

I see.

Also, this is a FanT universe designed for fun, so it employs occasional magitek. I know I shouldn't use that, but that's the IC justification to get high velocity.

we fight dragons, and rifles with small bullets are useful for this, as are high caliber weapons. The smaller bullets afaik go faster, and 20mm and such do more damage.

[United states of brazilian nations]

Alternatively, figure out some Spanish (or just find the search bar) and use Municion.org

So use.

that's when you're glad to be south american and have spanish classes in addition to portuguese ones.]

also, for a 5.56mm NATO cartridge, would a 0.3mm tickness for the case at the neck and 0.5mm at the base sound right?