NationStates

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:54 am**

Fordorsia wrote:
Purpelia wrote:Honestly I don't even think they would have done that too often. If you are serving in a tank unit that is composed of one type of tank you'd just call it a Tank. If you are getting your supplies via 20 different types of halt-track I imagine you'd just call them all a truck. Just like you'd call your rifle a rifle.

Yeah that's what I mean, they would use broad terms for everything. Then again according to the oh so reliable wikis, Germans commonly referred to their half-tracks as Hanomags, the manufacturer being Hanomag.

Speaking of half-tracks, how viable would it be to keep using them in large numbers well after WWII and even today?

Actually fuck it, I forgot this is IDT

I thougt APCs fell under our jurisdiction? Any who I personally don't think so because, as is the case with most things, logistics would be bad. You'd need separate parts for the tracks and the bare wheels when either a tracked or wheeled APC would do you much better.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:59 am**

Yukonastan wrote:
Aqizithiuda wrote:
Describe said problem creatures.

highly penetrating silver-tipped 10mm rifle rounds with small crosses scribed in their tips. Benefits/drawbacks of?

The anger is building.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:02 am**

I just thought up an interesting concept for a trigger system for a striker fired weapon and I want your opinions.
1. The striker is a metal rod located in the center of the bolt and is spring loaded.
2. The striker houses the firing pin as well as two catches, a square shaped at the bottom and a circular one at the back. It also has a rail on one side. This rail rides inside the bolt and ensures that with a rotating bolt as the bolt locks to rotate the firing pin rotates with it.

The idea with the firing mechanism is simple. You have the exact same two sear system as with any other striker fired weapon. Nothing fancy. The trigger sear, as in the one directly controlled by the trigger catches on the read disc. The full auto sear, as in the one that drops to fire it when on full auto catches on the square lug at the front.

The difference is in how the weapon fires. Basically, as the bolt moves forward and backward the bolt is rotated a certain way and the striker is thus in such a position that the square lug engages with the full-auto sear. As the bolt locks however it rotates and this rotates the striker which disengages the lug from the sear leaving it only to be held back by the trigger. Releasing the trigger fires it. And if it is held down the weapon just keeps cycling and firing on full auto as long as the bolt keeps going forward and locking.

Expected performance is closed bolt (unless I make a bolt hold open for an empty mag which I would) full auto only. But I think I could get it to work as an open bolt as well just by making the trigger sear block the bolt from moving forward as well.
Expected benefits are a dirt cheap implementation and mechanical simplicity.
Expected flaws are the inability to install any sort of select fire system into this thing. So full auto only.

Thoughts?

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:20 am**

Purpelia wrote:I just thought up an interesting concept for a trigger system for a striker fired weapon and I want your opinions.
1. The striker is a metal rod located in the center of the bolt and is spring loaded.
2. The striker houses the firing pin as well as two catches, a square shaped at the bottom and a circular one at the back. It also has a rail on one side. This rail rides inside the bolt and ensures that with a rotating bolt as the bolt locks to rotate the firing pin rotates with it.
(Image)

The idea with the firing mechanism is simple. You have the exact same two sear system as with any other striker fired weapon. Nothing fancy. The trigger sear, as in the one directly controlled by the trigger catches on the read disc. The full auto sear, as in the one that drops to fire it when on full auto catches on the square lug at the front.

The difference is in how the weapon fires. Basically, as the bolt moves forward and backward the bolt is rotated a certain way and the striker is thus in such a position that the square lug engages with the full-auto sear. As the bolt locks however it rotates and this rotates the striker which disengages the lug from the sear leaving it only to be held back by the trigger. Releasing the trigger fires it. And if it is held down the weapon just keeps cycling and firing on full auto as long as the bolt keeps going forward and locking.

Expected performance is closed bolt (unless I make a bolt hold open for an empty mag which I would) full auto only. But I think I could get it to work as an open bolt as well just by making the trigger sear block the bolt from moving forward as well.
Expected benefits are a dirt cheap implementation and mechanical simplicity.
Expected flaws are the inability to install any sort of select fire system into this thing. So full auto only.

Thoughts?

If it's an open-bolt system you can install a trigger disconnector to catch the bolt in semiautomatic.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:29 am**

What should I use as my LMG I don't know much about them?

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:30 am**

Free Florida wrote:What should I use as my LMG I don't know much about them?

Your service rifle + Drum magazine.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:33 am**

Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:
Free Florida wrote:What should I use as my LMG I don't know much about them?

Your service rifle + Drum magazine.

Is there an advantage to a belt fed one like the Maxim?

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:34 am**

maxim

light

=/////////=

Go with something like the MG3

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:38 am**

Free Florida wrote:
Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:Your service rifle + Drum magazine.

Is there an advantage to a belt fed one like the Maxim?

You can fire for longer, don't have to rely on a spring to keep your magazine working, and belts are easier to carry than a bunch of drums. Nirv's a crazy person, use a belt fed one that uses the same cartridge that your service rifle does.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:38 am**

Yukonastan wrote:
Aqizithiuda wrote:
Describe said problem creatures.

As average as you can get; and conventional rounds seem to do nothing. I'm leaning to highly penetrating silver-tipped 10mm rifle rounds with small crosses scribed in their tips. Benefits/drawbacks of?

Paintball guns firing GIO(b)/GIO(b)/SN/W(h)

That's Garlic Infused Oil (blessed), Silver nitrate and water (holy).

Should do the trick against most of your basic unholy abominations.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:45 am**

Doppio Giudici wrote:
Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:First man gets a rifle, second man gets a magazine.

IRL, the first man gets a rifle with one stripper-clip, while the second one gets the same. Then they try not to use up their five rounds and cry.

USSR didn't have a weapon shortage in WW2, they had an ammo shortage.

Except no.

The "First man gets a rifle, the second ammunition" is a trope. The USSR had this issue, but only in some instances.

At the peak Soviet industry was putting out an astonishing 10,000 plus rifles a day and many tines that in ammunition. In instances in which there were ammunition shortages, it was because the advance had outpaced the supply lines, or it was a siege Such was the case at the siege of Petrograd and Stalingrad, where the trope originates from.

Supply barges crossing the river were destroyed by German air power, along with some troop transports. This left new arrivals short weapons. So they issued what they could and did one of two things; held those who didn't have weapons in reserve for when they WOULD have weapons, or give them over to their respective units who would likely find a random weapon and give it to the soldier. The myth has basis in reality in that they issued rifles to some men and not all, and likely had an order similar to that, but it wasn't "No gun? Fuck it , you're now Comrade Meat Shield" level.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:48 am**

Was there much usage of captured small arms in that case?

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:54 am**

Padnak wrote:Was there much usage of captured small arms in that case?

Both sides used captured small arms and field guns.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:56 am**

They even made manuals for each others weapons and made them to fire their own ammo.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:00 am**

Doppio Giudici wrote:They even made manuals for each others weapons and made them to fire their own ammo.

The Germans apparently thought the PPsH was pretty great, since there are a number of versions that were re-bored to take 9mm ammo.

Although most of the "official" re-use seems to have been in the form of artillery of various sorts. The 122mm howitzer (A-19) apparently wound up as far away as Africa and the Atlantic Wall. They also started producing ammunition for the Soviet 76mm gun at one point, due to the number they had captured.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:03 am**

Talking of using captured weapons, do any of your nations follow the RL Red Chinese idea of having medium mortars with a bore just very slightly wider than standard elsewhere (in their case, 82mm vs the NATO 81mm) so that they could fire captured ammo -- with a slight loss in range & accuracy -- but their own ammo would be no use to anybody else?

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:07 am**

I can only imagine small arms we the only captured weapons put into any decent amount of service. Things like the small number of vehicles and field guns captured would be tested for their abilities and weaknesses, especially later in the war when the Germans had barely anough ammo for themselves, let alone for the Allies to use after the hardware was abandoned. It simply wouldn't be cost or combat-effective to take them somewhere to be altered for use with Allied ammunition when they didn't need to.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:09 am**

Fordorsia wrote:Nirv's a crazy person, use a belt fed one that uses the same cartridge that your service rifle does.

True though that may be, it does not make me wrong. IE RPD.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:13 am**

Fordorsia wrote:I can only imagine small arms we the only captured weapons put into any decent amount of service. Things like the small number of vehicles and field guns captured would be tested for their abilities and weaknesses, especially later in the war when the Germans had barely anough ammo for themselves, let alone for the Allies to use after the hardware was abandoned. It simply wouldn't be cost or combat-effective to take them somewhere to be altered for use with Allied ammunition when they didn't need to.

Germany had large stocks of captured ammunition from Barbarossa which, IIRC, tithed them over to 1944.

Achtung Panzer has some good photos of captured tanks, to risk going off topic a bit:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/ctpic2.htm

It's a mistake to think that German equipment was universally superior to Soviet equipment. The Germans seem to have thought quite highly of a lot of Soviet weaponry. Especially the SVT-40, which they apparently borrowed heavily from in the design of the Gewehr 43.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:14 am**

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:
Fordorsia wrote:I can only imagine small arms we the only captured weapons put into any decent amount of service. Things like the small number of vehicles and field guns captured would be tested for their abilities and weaknesses, especially later in the war when the Germans had barely anough ammo for themselves, let alone for the Allies to use after the hardware was abandoned. It simply wouldn't be cost or combat-effective to take them somewhere to be altered for use with Allied ammunition when they didn't need to.

Germany had large stocks of captured ammunition from Barbarossa which, IIRC, tithed them over to 1944.

Achtung Panzer has some good photos of captured tanks, to risk going off topic a bit:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/ctpic2.htm

It's a mistake to think that German equipment was universally superior to Soviet equipment. The Germans seem to have thought quite highly of a lot of Soviet weaponry. Especially the SVT-40, which they apparently borrowed heavily from in the design of the Gewehr 43.

They had very different design philosophies. The Soviet stuff generally worked better in Russia, due to not being over-engineered as fuck.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:14 am**

Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:
Fordorsia wrote:Nirv's a crazy person, use a belt fed one that uses the same cartridge that your service rifle does.

True though that may be, it does not make me wrong. IE RPD.

The RPD is belt fed...

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:14 am**

Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:
Fordorsia wrote:Nirv's a crazy person, use a belt fed one that uses the same cartridge that your service rifle does.

True though that may be, it does not make me wrong. IE RPD.

The RPD was a belt-fed weapon in the same cartridge of the service rifle (SKS, which came about the same time) though was not derived from the SKS.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:16 am**

The RPD is a weapon I don't think I've ever seen used in NS

I might have to start using them...

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:16 am**

Fordorsia wrote:
Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:True though that may be, it does not make me wrong. IE RPD.

The RPD is belt fed...

Whoops. RPK. Also BAR. Also Bren. Also DP-28. Also MG-36. Also HK-21(?). And so on and so forth.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:18 am**

BAR, BREN and DP-28 weren't derived from service rifles though.

Padnak wrote:The RPD is a weapon I don't think I've ever seen used in NS

I might have to start using them...

Ford made a very pretty RPD that one time.

NationStates

Infantry Discussion Thread 6: True Korea Edition