NS Infantry discussion thread

[Ardavia]

SOW

(Image)

Is that seriously iron sights just behind the holo? I'm pretty sure that just blocks up sighting for both of them.

EDIT: cover me while I find something

EDIT2: Here, have a Beretta 471 Silver Hawk

[Lemanrussland]

Except that assault rifles weren't realy around in 1939, and semi-automatic rifles most certainly were, and were being fielded by a major world power.

By one major world power. Everyone else basically used bolt action rifles, and those did match up to it well. I remember reading somewhere that the Marines in the Pacific were just as combat effective with the Springfield as the Garand.

Ehhhhhh... the Garand gave the average American rifleman a pretty huge advantage. A unit equipped with Garands has a much higher effective rate of fire, particularly because you don't have to break your sight picture to work the bolt. The Americans fell down when it came to light machineguns. The BAR, though badass, was not really a remarkable light machine gun. In theory the rifle squads could rely on fire from platoon and company level machineguns, but in practice this often did not happen. Interestingly, the MG-34 went into service in the German Army in 1936, same year as the Garand did in the USA. If a nation had both a belt-fed GPMG and a semi-automatic rifle for all of their infantry squads, they would be light years ahead of virtually anyone else in terms of small unit firepower.

[Bezombia]

"A basic Stoner action"

what does that even mean

Stoner designed a fuck ton of actions you know

[Sevvania]

Only really by one nation (in large numbers). In 1936, the M1 Garand was essentially the most advanced service rifle which had been introduced by a major country.

The Soviets and Germans both tried to introduce semi-automatic rifles during that time, but couldn't for economic reasons. Having semi-automatic rifles as standard issue in 1914 is honestly like having assault rifles as standard issue in 1939. It's a bit cheesy in my opinion.

Except that assault rifles weren't realy around in 1939, and semi-automatic rifles most certainly were, and were being fielded by a major world power.

It wasn't used by any military, as far as I know, but the Remington Model 8 always comes to mind when I think of "World War I" and "assault rifle" in the same train of thought.

Around in 1911, semi-automatic (maybe it could be modified to be full-auto because NS), capable of accepting 30-round detachable magazines and a foregrip, and I think there were variants that were chambered for intermediate cartridges.

[Bezombia]

SOW

(Image)

Is that seriously iron sights just behind the holo? I'm pretty sure that just blocks up sighting for both of them.

It would work absolutely fine, especially considering the sights are lower than the optic.
An optic with mounted back up iron sights is standard issue, to my knowledge, of pretty much everyone.

[Purpelia]

By one major world power. Everyone else basically used bolt action rifles, and those did match up to it well. I remember reading somewhere that the Marines in the Pacific were just as combat effective with the Springfield as the Garand.

Ehhhhhh... the Garand gave the average American rifleman a pretty huge advantage. A unit equipped with Garands has a much higher effective rate of fire, particularly because you don't have to break your sight picture to work the bolt.

You don't have to break the sight picture on the Model 1890 either. Just work that handle.

The BAR, though badass, was not really a remarkable light machine gun. In theory the rifle squads could rely on fire from platoon and company level machineguns, but in practice this often did not happen. Interestingly, the MG-34 went into service in the German Army in 1936, same year as the Garand did in the USA. If a nation had both a belt-fed GPMG and a semi-automatic rifle for all of their infantry squads, they would be light years ahead of virtually anyone else in terms of small unit firepower.

And they would be generally ahistorical and lame.


The best compromise is the Soviet model, which is what I did with Purpelia. Have both a bolt action rifle and a semi-auto one that's in limited production. Issue the bolt action to general troops and the semi-auto to officers, snipers and elite formations as it costs way more to make. With the eventual plan of giving everyone a semi-auto by 1945.

[Lemanrussland]

Except that assault rifles weren't realy around in 1939, and semi-automatic rifles most certainly were, and were being fielded by a major world power.

It wasn't used by any military, as far as I know, but the Remington Model 8 always comes to mind when I think of "World War I" and "assault rifle" in the same train of thought.

Around in 1911, semi-automatic (maybe it could be modified to be full-auto because NS), capable of accepting 30-round detachable magazines and a foregrip, and I think there were variants that were chambered for intermediate cartridges.

I personally think of the Fedorov Avtomat (not really a practical gun, but quite ahead of it's time in terms of concept). Fedorov had also proposed a GPMG in 1920, but never sat down and actually designed a prototype AFAIK. He was quite a forward thinking gun designer.

[Hertzlia]

yeah I do I just didn't think about it. I could change it to SOC (special operations carbine)

[Ardavia]

By one major world power. Everyone else basically used bolt action rifles, and those did match up to it well. I remember reading somewhere that the Marines in the Pacific were just as combat effective with the Springfield as the Garand.

Ehhhhhh... the Garand gave the average American rifleman a pretty huge advantage. A unit equipped with Garands has a much higher effective rate of fire, particularly because you don't have to break your sight picture to work the bolt. The Americans fell down when it came to light machineguns. The BAR, though badass, was not really a remarkable light machine gun. In theory the rifle squads could rely on fire from platoon and company level machineguns, but in practice this often did not happen. Interestingly, the MG-34 went into service in the German Army in 1936, same year as the Garand did in the USA. If a nation had both a belt-fed GPMG and a semi-automatic rifle for all of their infantry squads, they would be light years ahead of virtually anyone else in terms of small unit firepower.

You didn't have to break the sight picture either with the Kar98k, I think, because of the turned down handle. The SMLE, IIRC, suffered from that problem though.

Is that seriously iron sights just behind the holo? I'm pretty sure that just blocks up sighting for both of them.

It would work absolutely fine, especially considering the sights are lower than the optic.
An optic with mounted back up iron sights is standard issue, to my knowledge, of pretty much everyone.

Yeah, but I think that looks like the sights are up to half the optic, which if I understand correctly how something like that looks from an aiming perspective, makes it depend on how the rear sight looks.

[Bezombia]

Yeah, but I think that looks like the sights are up to half the optic, which if I understand correctly how something like that looks from an aiming perspective, makes it depend on how the rear sight looks.

And again, you're incorrect. First hand reports in this thread alone, with one of our regulars saying that he prefers having the sights visible when aiming with his optic.

[Purpelia]

It wasn't used by any military, as far as I know, but the Remington Model 8 always comes to mind when I think of "World War I" and "assault rifle" in the same train of thought.
(Image)
Around in 1911, semi-automatic (maybe it could be modified to be full-auto because NS), capable of accepting 30-round detachable magazines and a foregrip, and I think there were variants that were chambered for intermediate cartridges.

I personally think of the Fedorov Avtomat (not really a practical gun, but quite ahead of it's time in terms of concept). Fedorov had also proposed a GPMG in 1920, but never sat down and actually designed a prototype AFAIK. He was quite a forward thinking gun designer.

The issue is as you said practicality. Proper AR's didn't really become practical until you could do massive amounts of stamping to churn out metal receivers en mass as well as gear your industry toward machining much more intricate parts. Remember, small fiddly bits like those on an AR are expensive back in the WW1/WW2. And if your army has to chose between a new MG34 or another rifle that works marginally better than their ordinary ones guess which they'll chose.

[Ardavia]

Yeah, but I think that looks like the sights are up to half the optic, which if I understand correctly how something like that looks from an aiming perspective, makes it depend on how the rear sight looks.

And again, you're incorrect. First hand reports in this thread alone, with one of our regulars saying that he prefers having the sights visible when aiming with his optic.

Alright, I admit it, I was wrong. I've only ever used iron sights, so, well.

[Sevvania]

It wasn't used by any military, as far as I know, but the Remington Model 8 always comes to mind when I think of "World War I" and "assault rifle" in the same train of thought.
(Image)
Around in 1911, semi-automatic (maybe it could be modified to be full-auto because NS), capable of accepting 30-round detachable magazines and a foregrip, and I think there were variants that were chambered for intermediate cartridges.

I personally think of the Fedorov Avtomat (not really a practical gun, but quite ahead of it's time in terms of concept). Fedorov had also proposed a GPMG in 1920, but never sat down and actually designed a prototype AFAIK. He was quite a forward thinking gun designer.

Glo-ree-us.

[Purpelia]

We all know how the MG34 came to be right? But MG30, develop your own derivative. Be called Germany.

Well, given that Purpelia likes the Swiss we did the same thing. Enter MG1932. Basically an MG30 more than the 34 it has some rather interesting changes including but not limited to a different trigger system (no more funky trigger) and a bayonet lug for those times you have to charge across and take the trenches.

[Sevvania]

We all know how the MG34 came to be right? But MG30, develop your own derivative. Be called Germany.

Well, given that Purpelia likes the Swiss we did the same thing. Enter MG1932. Basically an MG30 more than the 34 it has some rather interesting changes including but not limited to a different trigger system (no more funky trigger) and a bayonet lug for those times you have to charge across and take the trenches.

Pic or it didn't happen. O:

[Purpelia]

We all know how the MG34 came to be right? But MG30, develop your own derivative. Be called Germany.

Well, given that Purpelia likes the Swiss we did the same thing. Enter MG1932. Basically an MG30 more than the 34 it has some rather interesting changes including but not limited to a different trigger system (no more funky trigger) and a bayonet lug for those times you have to charge across and take the trenches.

Pic or it didn't happen. O:

No pictures yet sadly. The design is still in the pre production stage where I flesh out the details before I write things up.

[Blackledge]

You do know that SOW is the name for a female pig?

Maybe they have a squad support weapon called a BOAR?

Bipod-oriented Automatic Rifle.

Heh.

[Spreewerke]

Were it not the cost, I would love to issue English walnut stocks. Quick question though. Would it be feasible to issue POSP 4x24 on a large scale, like Amreekis with their optics. I think not, and if so, what would be a good comblock alternative? PK-AS?

Not to toot my own horn, but if you can make the super-simple PU scope on modern equipment (which you can, obviously, and it'll probably be better quality), I'd go with that. Super simple, magnified reticle is oh-so-easy to pick up quickly looking through the tube, and you could probably make special caliber-appropriate knob rings. On the actual PU, it's set up for 7.62x54mmR drop, so if it's 800m away, you turn the knob to "8": http://i.imgur.com/AP5WvPD.jpg Well, you could probably do the same for other calibers: just be sure to mark them so you don't accidentally into 7.62x39mm on a 5.56x45mm rifle. Anyway, you've got an adjustable BDC, windage knob to do the same, and the scope itself is pretty damned solid.

Here's your 3.5x magnification sight picture: http://i.imgur.com/eD1UE2p.jpg

A good alternative would just be to use a simplified PSO (which is pretty simple to begin with) since it has the range-finder built into it. I'm really digging these PUs I've been using lately, though.

SOW

(Image)

Is that seriously iron sights just behind the holo? I'm pretty sure that just blocks up sighting for both of them.

EDIT: cover me while I find something

EDIT2: Here, have a Beretta 471 Silver Hawk

Cowitnessed dot with iron sights (lower 1/3 cowitness): http://i.imgur.com/NgYHYMP.jpg

Regular aiming using dot alone (dot is super-bright for demonstrative purposes): http://i.imgur.com/BeF7g3Y.jpg

Here is how the rifle is set up: http://i.imgur.com/fVqS2Uh.jpg

You didn't have to break the sight picture either with the Kar98k, I think, because of the turned down handle. The SMLE, IIRC, suffered from that problem though.

M91/30 to Kar98k, I've never had any problems with keeping a sight picture when cycling the bolt. Bent-bolts are just easier to manipulate due to increased leverage, but non-bents are perfectly capable of remaining shouldered/sighted when cycling.

[3 State Alliance]

So I have been thinking about reworking my army lately and would like to float changes past NS's resident military experts.

Changes:
Body armour, need something cheap with moderate protection for mechanized troops
New weapons, maybe assault rifles, once again need something cheap and fairly accurate
New uniforms, moving away from olive drab, black or white, some kind of basic camouflage pattern
A dedicated desert combat unit, for counter insurgency operations
A lighter MG - at 19lbs the M1T5 is slowing down units and the 30 round clip is to small and unreliable

[Ardavia]

So I have been thinking about reworking my army lately and would like to float changes past NS's resident military experts.

Changes:
A) Body armour, need something cheap with moderate protection for mechanized troops
B) New weapons, maybe assault rifles, once again need something cheap and fairly accurate
C) New uniforms, moving away from olive drab, black or white, some kind of basic camouflage pattern
D) A dedicated desert combat unit, for counter insurgency operations
E) A lighter MG - at 19lbs the M1T5 is slowing down units and the 30 round clip is to small and unreliable

A) k
B) Some AK derivative, maybe?
C) Do like some countries, use a digital photo of your vegetation and rework it into camouflage
D) Sounds good.
E) MG3, FN Minimi, FN MAG, some PK series MG, something like that?

[Aqizithiuda]

But World War One? Did anyone actually use semi-auto rifles there?

I know they were used in WWII.

Only really by one nation (in large numbers). In 1936, the M1 Garand was essentially the most advanced service rifle which had been introduced by a major country.

The Soviets and Germans both tried to introduce semi-automatic rifles during that time, but couldn't for economic reasons. Having semi-automatic rifles as standard issue in 1914 is honestly like having assault rifles as standard issue in 1939. It's a bit cheesy in my opinion.

The Winchester M1907 was used by England, France and Russia in the thousands to arm both pilots and special assault units. The French models were modified to fire fully automatically, had a 15 or 20 round magazine and could mount a bayonet.

The French had both the Meunier rifle, which would have been used in far greater numbers if an ammunition load had been selected in 1910, as opposed to 1913, and the RSC M1917/M1918, which, in it's improved form, was a pretty solid rifle. These both came out of a program that started in the 1890s.

The Cei-Rigotti, based on modern examinations, would likely have been a solid rifle had a series of unfortunate events not scuttled any chance of being adopted.

Hiram Maxim had actually built a semi-auto rifle before his machine gun as a proof of concept for using the recoil of the rifle to work the action.

The Remington Model 8 is another pre-WW1 self loading rifle, and it has a pretty good reputation.

So, in short, both semi-automatic rifles and assault rifles could potentially he used in great numbers and even be standard issue among some units during the WW1 period.

[Blackledge]

A lighter MG - at 19lbs the M1T5 is slowing down units and the 30 round clip is to small and unreliable

19lbs and only a 30-round capacity? Rather an antiquated sounding design.

Just noticed Ardavia's post. Those are some good recommendations for modern standards.

[Lemanrussland]

So I have been thinking about reworking my army lately and would like to float changes past NS's resident military experts.

Changes:
Body armour, need something cheap with moderate protection for mechanized troops
New weapons, maybe assault rifles, once again need something cheap and fairly accurate
New uniforms, moving away from olive drab, black or white, some kind of basic camouflage pattern
A dedicated desert combat unit, for counter insurgency operations
A lighter MG - at 19lbs the M1T5 is slowing down units and the 30 round clip is to small and unreliable

The FN Mk 48 is a pretty good light machine gun. Only 8.2 kg empty. The recoil is worse than with a full blown GPMG (FN MAG, PKM, MG3), and the range is a bit less (800m against area targets from the bipod) but you can't have everything I suppose.

You could also just build your entire squad around a proper GPMG, with a machine gun team composed of at least a gunner and assistant gunner, and two rifle teams (who protect, enable the maneuver of, and carry extra ammo for the machine gun team), plus the squad commander.

This video demonstrates pretty well what that would look like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz0a_QGifPM

[3 State Alliance]

A lighter MG - at 19lbs the M1T5 is slowing down units and the 30 round clip is to small and unreliable

19lbs and only a 30-round capacity? Rather an antiquated sounding design.

It did fire a .338 lapua knock off (The NA.330) but yeah, kind of a stupidly epic gun

[3 State Alliance]

So I have been thinking about reworking my army lately and would like to float changes past NS's resident military experts.

Changes:
A) Body armour, need something cheap with moderate protection for mechanized troops
B) New weapons, maybe assault rifles, once again need something cheap and fairly accurate
C) New uniforms, moving away from olive drab, black or white, some kind of basic camouflage pattern
D) A dedicated desert combat unit, for counter insurgency operations
E) A lighter MG - at 19lbs the M1T5 is slowing down units and the 30 round clip is to small and unreliable

A) k
B) Some AK derivative, maybe?
C) Do like some countries, use a digital photo of your vegetation and rework it into camouflage
D) Sounds good.
E) MG3, FN Minimi, FN MAG, some PK series MG, something like that?

B) I was wondering about the feasibility of something in .30 carbine
C) good idea that, will still keep the white for winter campaigns
E) I do like the MG3