NS infantry discussion thread. Mark II

[Imperializt Russia]

This webpage is amazing.
One of the first true weapons that we might today call a light machine gun (in the sense of a weapon carried and fired by one man and firing the general cartridge), the Parabellum Machine Gun. Designed at about the same time as the original Lewis gun, in 1911.
(Image)
Belt-fed, 7.92mm Mauser. Essentially a lightened Maxim gun, it weighed all of ten kilograms, unloaded.
Six pounds lighter than the Lewis and two pounds lighter than the Vickers-Berthier and just two pounds heavier than the Degtyaryov.

And people say history is boring, they're looking in the wrong place.

That page is old news.

You should check out the other volumes they've got (which are PDFs only). Lots and lots of interesting things there.

Still on ibiblio?

[Aqizithiuda]

That page is old news.

You should check out the other volumes they've got (which are PDFs only). Lots and lots of interesting things there.

Still on ibiblio?

Yup: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/MG/

And the missing volume 2 from another source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24704108/The- ... ge-M-Chinn

[Fordorsia]

I really need to stop moving onto another drawing before finishing something.

Anyway, Naval Cutlass WIP:



Now I want to remake my utility knives with this cutlass' hilt. Fuck.

[Anemos Major]

(Image)

Why does Argentina have a 3" shoulder-fired "Lacrosse Samurai" launcher?

French, actually, though the design was taken up by FN Herstal USA. It was designed to meet the same requirements the PAPOP was designed for - it's like an endless source of hilarious designs.

[Vareiln]

Compact doesn't just mean weight. The AK-107 is 700mm long, the Vector is 410mm. That's almost half as long.

How long is the Vector's barrel? What's the Vector's cartridge? What's the Vector's purpose?

All three of those are so wildly different as to not even compete with an AK.

I really, really doubt a BARS-equipped AK-107 would work with a 140mm barrel.

It probably wouldn't. Why would it need to?

Hmm... Now I kinda want to make an SMG that uses BARS...

BARS IIRC is about counteracting the rearward impulse of the bolt carrier group and piston (and also probably counter muzzle rise by sending a forward impulse over the barrel).
Unless you've somehow fashioned a long-stroke SMG, I wouldn't bother.

BUT THE COOLNESS FACTOR!

[Aethal]

BUT THE COOLNESS FACTOR!

I do believe you meant to say "BUT THE COD FACTOR!"

Or at least we can utilize said remark to summarize Benos' obsession with everything that is an over-hyped, over-publicized polymer brick with a trigger.

[New United California]

The NCR uses one main type of combat armor, which is comfortable and protective for troops in the field. The MK2 Variant Combat Armor is medium weight, protective, and easy to maneuver in. The color and camo depends on environment. The shoulder patch is dependent on if the soldier is ranger or foot soldier (NCR Flag patch if foot soldier, Ranger patch if Ranger)

NCR Combat Armor Variants

Weaponry
Most NCR Troops carry the SR-556 Service Rifle into battle, which uses a 5.56mm Round.

NCR Troops often carry the .45 Auto pistol into battle as a sidearm as well, which uses a .45 ACP Round or .45 Special rounds

For assault troops and Rangers, the AC-5 is carried, it is a compact assault rifle that uses 5mm rounds or 5mm Hollow point or armor piercing rounds

Special Forces

The best known NCR Special Forces Unit is the Rangers, renown for their extreme combat skills and intelligence. The NCR Training Program lasts five weeks, full of intense training. If a Ranger show extraordinary skill, he/she will be promoted to a Veteran Ranger Division, where he/she gets new armor and weaponry. Veteran Rangers are respected by allies and civilians, and feared by enemies.

NCR Veteran Ranger Armor

[Fordorsia]

BUT THE COOLNESS FACTOR!

I do believe you meant to say "BUT THE COD FACTOR!"

Or at least we can utilize said remark to summarize Benos' obsession with everything that is an over-hyped, over-publicized polymer turd with a trigger.

I won't even bother thinking of ways to support your outbursts anymore, let alone put them to use.

[Aethal]

I do believe you meant to say "BUT THE COD FACTOR!"

Or at least we can utilize said remark to summarize Benos' obsession with everything that is an over-hyped, over-publicized polymer brick with a trigger.

I won't even bother thinking of ways to support your outbursts anymore, let alone put them to use.

I did something silly again, didn't I?

[Rich and Corporations]

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.

In the Cold War, the American armoured division wasn't exactly far off for the number of tanks.

The USSR's advantage was in its layout. In using a three man tank, the Russians could put two Battalions on the field for every one the US could in terms of manpower.

I guess USSR tanks were poorly maintained.

[Purpelia]

In the Cold War, the American armoured division wasn't exactly far off for the number of tanks.

The USSR's advantage was in its layout. In using a three man tank, the Russians could put two Battalions on the field for every one the US could in terms of manpower.

I guess USSR tanks were poorly maintained.

Actually they were half the weight and less complex and thus easier to maintain. You didn't have to be an aerospace engineer to clean the engine filters.

[Imperializt Russia]

In the Cold War, the American armoured division wasn't exactly far off for the number of tanks.

The USSR's advantage was in its layout. In using a three man tank, the Russians could put two Battalions on the field for every one the US could in terms of manpower.

I guess USSR tanks were poorly maintained.

In the sense that they were maintained less frequently and less thoroughly than western tanks because they required less, then yes.

[Purpelia]

Honestly I think that there is a serious reason why the maintenance argument falls flat. Tanks don't operate alone. If I have a platoon of 12 tankers it does not matter if it has 3, 4 or 12 tanks from a maintenance standpoint as the crews will be helping each other out.

[Bezombia]

BUT THE COOLNESS FACTOR!

I do believe you meant to say "BUT THE COD FACTOR!"

Or at least we can utilize said remark to summarize Benos' obsession with everything that is an over-hyped, over-publicized polymer turd with a trigger.

Excuse me?

[Aethal]

I really need to stop moving onto another drawing before finishing something.

Anyway, Naval Cutlass WIP:

(Image)

Now I want to remake my utility knives with this cutlass' hilt. Fuck.

I forgot to comment on this here piece of steel. I digg it, in fact, I'd go so far as to call it a "Naval Infantrymans' handychop-shank" due to it's direct outward appearance. I approve good sir, go forth and make more pointy devices.

[Fordorsia]

More WIP:



Fordorsia. Where every sailor after the Deep War is a classy motherfucker.

[Kouralia]

More WIP:

(Image)

Fordorsia. Where every sailor after the Deep War is a classy motherfucker.

Enlisted, NCO, WO, OF?

[Fordorsia]

More WIP:

(Image)

Fordorsia. Where every sailor after the Deep War is a classy motherfucker.

Enlisted, NCO, WO, OF?

1st- Everyone before and during the Deep War from 1912-1920
2nd- Seamen
3rd- Officers
4th- Admiral of The Fleet

[Fordorsia]

Two-Handed Falchion

As the Deep War reached it's mid-stages, more Fordorsian soldiers were acquiring and using their own close combat weapons instead of the machetes and utility knives issued to them, to varying, but generally little effectiveness. Due to the confusion this put on logistics and the sheer number of Naðrfirar during their charges, it was decided that a large amount of two-handed swords would be made and distributed amongst the troops at the foremost trenches to help fend off Naðrfirar charges.
With it's great chopping ability as a single-handed sword, the blades were made as two handed falchions to allow for even stronger swings. As they arrived at the front lines, it was easy to decide who would use them. The largest and strongest of the Fordorsian soldiers, regardless of rank, would wield the sword just in front of the trenches, beside the many Ulfrans on the island, to help break the charge and allow the soldiers in the trenches more time to fire on the Naðrfirar. Rudimentary training was provided by the Ulfrans, but with a blade easily matching the Ulfrans' and the Naðrfirar's lack of shields and parrying weapons, all they had to do was swing in a general direction without finesse, as any contact would cause a great deal of damage to whatever was struck.

After the Deep War had ended, it was not surprising that many of these men were killed, even with the aid of Ulfrans beside them and the fire support from the trenches. The survivors, however, were well regarded for their bravery, and their actions rewarded with the official title of Sword Bearer, as well as being allowed to keep the sword they carried during the war.

The swords were never used in combat after the Deep War, but they were still wielded by the Sword Bearers during ceremonial duties. Several are kept at the Fordorsian National Museum, but most are still kept by the families of the Sword Bearers, passed on through the generations.

[Blackledge]

Honestly I think that there is a serious reason why the maintenance argument falls flat. Tanks don't operate alone. If I have a platoon of 12 tankers it does not matter if it has 3, 4 or 12 tanks from a maintenance standpoint as the crews will be helping each other out.

To agree and yet disagree, I would say that the maintenance argument doesn't really have anything to do with the numbers in the formations at all. The Soviets tended to just have a poor reputation due to their poor maintenance records in two rather public wars (WWII and Afghanistan). Despite having second-to-none technological sophistication in many fields, the Soviet army long suffered from lack of initiative in routine matters, slow innovation, shortages of trained technicians, and poor maintenance. It's no wonder that so much of their equipment had to be developed in a manner that compensated for these weaknesses.

Edit: As a clarification, my disagreement is that there is a maintenance argument against the Soviet/Russian military, but not necessarily the style of organization they had for their armoured forces.

[Black Hand]

I was thinking the other day, what would be the best exterior plating for my soldiers power armor? I'm thinking a IR diffusing shell for standard infantry armor, with a RAM coating and greater IR diffusion on Special forces and reconnaissance models. maybe forgoing any stealth on the amphibious assault armor and simply electroplating aluminum and anodizing it for ultimate weather resistance.

also a proposal, so a dome shaped explosive charge with deep cones cut into the surface and then lined with copper to make an anti vehicle charge, rather than attempting a single armor defeat. part of this is also to maintain some effectiveness against infantry. and the armor penetration is sometimes necessary given what my opponents field infantry wise.

[Purpelia]

Honestly I think that there is a serious reason why the maintenance argument falls flat. Tanks don't operate alone. If I have a platoon of 12 tankers it does not matter if it has 3, 4 or 12 tanks from a maintenance standpoint as the crews will be helping each other out.

To agree and yet disagree, I would say that the maintenance argument doesn't really have anything to do with the numbers in the formations at all. The Soviets tended to just have a poor reputation due to their poor maintenance records in two rather public wars (WWII and Afghanistan). Despite having second-to-none technological sophistication in many fields, the Soviet army long suffered from lack of initiative in routine matters, slow innovation, shortages of trained technicians, and poor maintenance. It's no wonder that so much of their equipment had to be developed in a manner that compensated for these weaknesses.

Edit: As a clarification, my disagreement is that there is a maintenance argument against the Soviet/Russian military, but not necessarily the style of organization they had for their armoured forces.

Actually the argument is not about Soviet vs OTAN but about how many men should fit in a tank. With autoloaders becoming ever more prevalent and reliable the last refuge of the manual loader crowd is the argument that supposedly having an extra man means you can have an extra set of hands when doing maintenance. And my counter argument to that is to claim that it does not matter how many hands you have per tank since you have the rest of the formation worth of hands for every tank anyway.

[Bezombia]

To agree and yet disagree, I would say that the maintenance argument doesn't really have anything to do with the numbers in the formations at all. The Soviets tended to just have a poor reputation due to their poor maintenance records in two rather public wars (WWII and Afghanistan). Despite having second-to-none technological sophistication in many fields, the Soviet army long suffered from lack of initiative in routine matters, slow innovation, shortages of trained technicians, and poor maintenance. It's no wonder that so much of their equipment had to be developed in a manner that compensated for these weaknesses.

Edit: As a clarification, my disagreement is that there is a maintenance argument against the Soviet/Russian military, but not necessarily the style of organization they had for their armoured forces.

Actually the argument is not about Soviet vs OTAN but about how many men should fit in a tank. With autoloaders becoming ever more prevalent and reliable the last refuge of the manual loader crowd is the argument that supposedly having an extra man means you can have an extra set of hands when doing maintenance. And my counter argument to that is to claim that it does not matter how many hands you have per tank since you have the rest of the formation worth of hands for every tank anyway.

If you're calling it OTAN, you should call it CCCP as well.

[Imperializt Russia]

No he shouldn't.

[Ardavia]

Is there a practical difference between 5.45x39 and 5.56x45?

Also, woo, this is the 7000th post anyone has made on this thread.