Infantry Discussion Thread 6: True Korea Edition

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Also if you were going to do that you could just give them 5.56 LSWs instead and win all the war.

Top page.

[Imperializt Russia]

So if as you say there are little or no perceivable differences between ammunitions (like the 5.56x 45 NATO and 7.62x51 NATO) then is wouldnt matter at all if i issued the 30 cal battle rifle instead of the 22 cal assault rifle. I could just add a PT requirement to my infantry that says they have to be able to hump the extra weight of the FAL plus 14 loaded magazines of the 30 cal ALONG with a belt of 30 for the machinegunner and then i will have ammunition commonality with my machinegun and the infantry won't notice the difference... Right?

A unit armed with rifle cartridge-firing weapons, rather than intermediates, will carry less ammunition and thereby expend less ammunition. This may make them less effective at suppressing their opponents in small-scale firefights and need more resupply opportunities.
This will not suddenly undo their entire army's ability to fight or win.

The .22LR is obviously at the extreme of extreme ends of this and I'm not going to really consider it. While .22LR cartridges have some limited applications, it almost certainly isn't as the mainline or primary cartridge of the infantry.

[Radicchio]

just to be clear i was not refering to .22LR i was talking about the 5.56 (22 caliber)

[Tekeristan]

What would you guys suggest for a bullet size for a LMG?
( In regards with the earlier conversation )

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

What would you guys suggest for a bullet size for a LMG?
( In regards with the earlier conversation )

Same size as your service rifle.

[Tekeristan]

What would you guys suggest for a bullet size for a LMG?
( In regards with the earlier conversation )

Same size as your service rifle.

I can see how that can be useful. Being able to grab bullets from one and the other.

[Radicchio]

There is a lot to be said for cartridge commonality.

I am curious, what are the reasons to have a Light Machine Gun at the basic infantry squad level?
Why not just have 2x General Purpose Machineguns?

[Imperializt Russia]

There is a lot to be said for cartridge commonality.

I am curious, what are the reasons to have a Light Machine Gun at the basic infantry squad level?
Why not just have 2x General Purpose Machineguns?

If you have GPMGs in the squad, of course, you thereby have LMGs there.

Same size as your service rifle.

I can see how that can be useful. Being able to grab bullets from one and the other.

Much like the prior discussion, there are useful elements to utilising a machine gun firing rifle cartridges when your service rifles fire intermediates.

[Vancon]

There is a lot to be said for cartridge commonality.

I am curious, what are the reasons to have a Light Machine Gun at the basic infantry squad level?
Why not just have 2x General Purpose Machineguns?

Easier to carry and suppress. They're used to support the forward elements as a base of fire. In a nutshell, they shoot to piss off the OPFOR as their team gets closer.

[Assorted Sucrose-Based Lifeforms]

Better range and penetration. Though it will weigh more and you probably don't need more range or penetration if you are doing the 5.56x39 / 6.5 rounds right.

How do I do them right? <:P

Acquire stronk and sugary General Purpose Cartridge.

6.50mm GPC

(bullet geometry)

Dimensions

---

Case type:

Straight Caseless

Bullet diameter:

6.50mm (6.70 mm drive band)

Bullet length:

30.00 mm

Neck diameter:

11.00 mm

Shoulder diameter:

11.00 mm

Base diameter:

11.00 mm

Case length:

35.00 mm

Overall length:

35.00 mm

Rifling twist:

1 in 227 mm

Primer type:

Electrically-ignited base

Common Calculation Input Data

---

Ballistic Coefficient (@muzzle velocity):

0.25 G7

Bullet Weight:

6.48 g (100 grains)

Muzzle Velocity:

960.0 ms^-1

Muzzle Energy:

2985.98 J

Temperature:

9.50 °C

Wind:

10.0 ms^-1 (right-to-left)

Pressure:

985.00 mb

Humidity:

86.0%

Altitude:

270.0 m

Atmospheric Density:

1.1935 kgm^-3

Speed of Sound:

339.3 ms^-1

Rifling Twist:

Left-hand twist

Charge Weight:

3.15 g

Firearm Weight:

3.49 kg (IWS)

Point-Blank Range (IWS)

---

Input Data

Target Height:

1.80 m

Target Kill Zone Radius:

150.0 mm

Sight Height Above Barrel:

125.0 mm

Barrel Angle from Horizontal:

0.00°

Output Data

Range:

350.0m

Travel Time:

0.41 s

Velocity on Impact:

753.60 ms^-1

Energy on Impact:

1838.60 J

Range of Maximum Height:

210.0 m

Standard Infantry Engagement Range (IWS)

---

Input Data

Range:

600.0 m

Barrel Angle from Horizontal:

0.00°

Output Data

Drop (MOA):

-16.9

Drop (mm):

-2964.18

Travel Time:

0.78 s

Velocity on Impact:

619.44 ms^-1

Energy on Impact:

1242.17 J

Extended Infantry Engagement Range (DMR)

---

Input Data

Range:

1000.0 m

Barrel Angle from Horizontal:

0.00°

Output Data

Drop (MOA):

-35.3

Drop (mm):

-10271.76

Travel Time:

1.55 s

Velocity on Impact:

434.40 ms^-1

Energy on Impact:

611.48 J

Terminal Range

---

Output Data

Terminal Range:

5373.6 m

Initial Angle:

32.5°

Terminal Angle:

63.5°

Terminal Time:

32.0 s

Terminal Velocity:

144.1 ms^-1

Terminal Energy:

67.3 J

Recoil (IWS)

---

Output Data

Recoil Velocity:

3.1 ms^-1

Recoil Impulse:

10.7 N•s

Recoil Energy:

16.5 J

Also comes in DMR flavour.

However I am becoming increasingly disenfranchised with GLORIOUS CASELESS WUNDERWAFFEN, and the 6.5 GPC is purely caseless in its current state. :/

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

There is a lot to be said for cartridge commonality.

I am curious, what are the reasons to have a Light Machine Gun at the basic infantry squad level?
Why not just have 2x General Purpose Machineguns?

A better question is; why have service rifles?

[Vancon]

There is a lot to be said for cartridge commonality.

I am curious, what are the reasons to have a Light Machine Gun at the basic infantry squad level?
Why not just have 2x General Purpose Machineguns?

A better question is; why have service rifles?

A better question is; why have swords?

[Immoren]

There is a lot to be said for cartridge commonality.

I am curious, what are the reasons to have a Light Machine Gun at the basic infantry squad level?
Why not just have 2x General Purpose Machineguns?

A better question is; why have service rifles?

MP5s and MG3s.

[Tekeristan]

A better question is; why have service rifles?

A better question is; why have swords?

Everyone should carry rotary grenade launchers.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

A better question is; why have service rifles?

A better question is; why have swords?

Pageantry, national pride, various other intangible benefits.

[Vancon]

A better question is; why have swords?

Everyone should carry rotary grenade launchers.

Why of course. It's the true meaning of war.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

A better question is; why have service rifles?

MP5s and MG3s.

I was thinking more Amelies and MG3s.

[Radicchio]

Ok, so assuming that you have a 15 man squad and atleast 10 of those men are "riflemen" who are carrying an AK variant or an AR variant.

You are obviously going to have a machinegunner in there with a MG-74 or an M6 or a PKT or SOMETHING like that...

Whyput a guy with a M249 out there at all when you could just put a second M6 or PK out there? I guess i am having a hard time understanding the role of that specific weapon in the squad. Why a LMG at_all?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Ok, so assuming that you have a 15 man squad and atleast 10 of those men are "riflemen" who are carrying an AK variant or an AR variant.

You are obviously going to have a machinegunner in there with a MG-74 or an M6 or a PKT or SOMETHING like that...

Whyput a guy with a M249 out there at all when you could just put a second M6 or PK out there? I guess i am having a hard time understanding the role of that specific weapon in the squad. Why a LMG at_all?

They're _supposed_ to provide comparable suppression in a more mobile package. The LMG is usually attached to the maneuver element when a GPMG is present.

*supposed

Gad dammit skype : ' (

[Yukonastan]

Ok, so assuming that you have a 15 man squad and atleast 10 of those men are "riflemen" who are carrying an AK variant or an AR variant.

You are obviously going to have a machinegunner in there with a MG-74 or an M6 or a PKT or SOMETHING like that...

Whyput a guy with a M249 out there at all when you could just put a second M6 or PK out there? I guess i am having a hard time understanding the role of that specific weapon in the squad. Why a LMG at_all?

The M60 has a harder kick, is heavier, bigger, longer, and has less available ammunition than the Minimi does. Granted, the Minimi is still a pig, but it's a hell of a lot lighter than the Pig is.

Although that DOES beg the question, why bother with a large-calibre or intermediate-calibre machine gun for suppressive purposes? Why not create a smaller and lighter round that you can carry twice as many of as your rifle cartridges?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

And unless I'm misremembering GPMGs are usually a platoon asset in most cases IRL and we just moved them down to squad level because lol :NS:

[Dostanuot Loj]

Ok, so assuming that you have a 15 man squad and atleast 10 of those men are "riflemen" who are carrying an AK variant or an AR variant.

You are obviously going to have a machinegunner in there with a MG-74 or an M6 or a PKT or SOMETHING like that...

Whyput a guy with a M249 out there at all when you could just put a second M6 or PK out there? I guess i am having a hard time understanding the role of that specific weapon in the squad. Why a LMG at_all?

The point is that you don't have a guy with an MG-74, M60 or PKT, you have two guys with M249s or RPKs. That way you can divide the unit into smaller groups built around the LMG.

Take a US infantry squad: It's 9-13 men (Army or USMC) but it is built around a squad leader and individual fire teams. Each fire team is 4 men and has two riflemen, a rifleman with a grenade launcher, and a LMG. The Commonwealth do something similar with 8 men where the squad leader also leads a fire team.
Whereas, conversely, the Germans with their GPMG approach have one team built around the GPMG and one team built around the grenadier. They are moving away from this BTW.

LMGs like M249 are there to further increase suppressive power of small units, and greater break up these small units for tactical flexibility. You can use a GPMG in their place, but you often end up with mobility issues and supply issues. Small ones of course that may not be important when the shooting happens, but they will change how the unit can maneuver. That's why RL armies are moving in that direction: flexibility.

[Immoren]

Ok, so assuming that you have a 15 man squad and atleast 10 of those men are "riflemen" who are carrying an AK variant or an AR variant.

You are obviously going to have a machinegunner in there with a MG-74 or an M6 or a PKT or SOMETHING like that...

Whyput a guy with a M249 out there at all when you could just put a second M6 or PK out there? I guess i am having a hard time understanding the role of that specific weapon in the squad. Why a LMG at_all?

The M60 has a harder kick, is heavier, bigger, longer, and has less available ammunition than the Minimi does. Granted, the Minimi is still a pig, but it's a hell of a lot lighter than the Pig is.

Although that DOES beg the question, why bother with a large-calibre or intermediate-calibre machine gun for suppressive purposes? Why not create a smaller and lighter round that you can carry twice as many of as your rifle cartridges?

Better barrier penetration is better suppression.
Although none of those are binary.

[Fordorsia]

And unless I'm misremembering GPMGs are usually a platoon asset in most cases IRL and we just moved them down to squad level because lol :NS:

Well if your service rifle is a battle rifle, why bother using an LMG with a smaller round? Muh ammo sharing. I have two GMPGs in a squad, but they're pretty short for what they are.

[Gallia-]

Refer back to the part of galla's post about infantry being able to understand the differences but not the implications.

I never said anything about "implications". Very rarely are the assumptions around which small arms cartridges are developed correct, actually.

Although I suppose the large, powerful cartridges of the early 20th century were totally correct? We know from experience that infantry squares volley fired at each other from a couple kilometers away, massacring entire regiments of soldiers with their rifles. Likewise, 5.56x45mm isn't used quite to the expectations of the 1950s US Army. It's adequate, and more importantly, readily available through mass production. Replacing machinery is expensive, especially if that new cartridge results in only marginal gains in terminal effects, range, and accuracy. It's easier to replace a single component, such as the bullet itself, rather than the entire cartridge. It isn't really an acknowledgement that 5.56mm is a great cartridge or anything, except that it's lighter and easier to transport in bulk than 7.62x51mm I suppose.

What Samoz calls "implications" is more accurately called "economics" or perhaps "industry".

The quoted example of "fully automatic fire" is not even considered nowadays, and was only marginal when the round was developed tbh. Arguably, the idea of the universal rifle was dead by 1960 as the US Army scrambled to get a light machine gun (m60) in its infantry platoons, etc. The adoption of burst fire as the preferred method of automatic fire for the infantryman was an acknowledgment by the US Army that the requirement of new infantry rifle (m16) to replace the BAR was well and truly dead, although it was arguably never a requirement for m16 in the first place, since the Army had already began studying issuing m60s to sections/platoons on the basis of being marginally heavier than BAR while providing significant increases in firepower.

The current small arms dichotomy is between the "ideal" intermediate and a mixed caliber (5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO) section. The ideal intermediate is seemingly the best because it allows you to consolidate production of cartridges to a single set of machinery, rather than having separate sets. However, it has the unfortunate side effect of being expensive to implement given the inertia of 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO (which will likely be used until we abandon bullet firing weapons) and rather questionable (you'll likely end up with a cartridge that is too closer to either to be useful) in the first place.