Infantry Discussion Thread, Mk. 8 Mod. 0 [No Kaiju]

[Transvaal Vrystaat]

It is for eating up interwar tanks and doing significant damage to WWII tanks.

One thing that's kinda odd about this is that early tanks didn't have much in the way of armor, so it didn't take a whole lot to penetrate it. Most of the anti-tank rifles of the interwar era seem to be between 7.92mm and 13.5mm.

Does that mean that 30mm might have overpenetration issues against tanks of that era?

[Fordorsia]

hindsight is 20/20

Not really hindsight. Why have a small caliber rifle that has difficulty getting through late interwar tanks, and does inconsistant damage when it does get through, when you can have a bigger rifle that has no such difficulty?

One thing that's kinda odd about this is that early tanks didn't have much in the way of armor, so it didn't take a whole lot to penetrate it. Most of the anti-tank rifles of the interwar era seem to be between 7.92mm and 13.5mm.

Does that mean that 30mm might have overpenetration issues against tanks of that era?

Maybe, but since ATR bullets didn't use explosives to get through armour or for killing people, overpenetration wouldn't be a problem.

[EsToVnIa]

yeah need 30mm to kill those late interwar tanks like Pz I, Pz II, R35, etc.

[Fordorsia]

yeah need 30mm to kill those late interwar tanks like Pz I, Pz II, R35, etc.

Nothing wrong with wanting a rifle that will go through anything it hits and kill in one shot over a rifle that will maybe go through frontal armour and maybe have enough energy left to kill someone or damage something.

What about a sabot for WWII? Is making a gun use sabots as simple as just putting a new cartridge in the gun or does it need rechambering and stuff?

?

[Eisarn-Ara]

At this point, your better off using it like the 2.8 cm sPzB 41.




Towed, Mounted or disassembled and stored in a vehicle on the way to a fight.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

What about a sabot for WWII? Is making a gun use sabots as simple as just putting a new cartridge in the gun or does it need rechambering and stuff?

You'll likely need to rebarrel it as well. Saboted rounds generally have tighter spin rates than their conventional cousins.

[Fordorsia]

What about a sabot for WWII? Is making a gun use sabots as simple as just putting a new cartridge in the gun or does it need rechambering and stuff?

You'll likely need to rebarrel it as well. Saboted rounds generally have tighter spin rates than their conventional cousins.

Wouldn't it just need to be smoothbore?

[Eisarn-Ara]

What about a sabot for WWII? Is making a gun use sabots as simple as just putting a new cartridge in the gun or does it need rechambering and stuff?

You'll likely need to rebarrel it as well. Saboted rounds generally have tighter spin rates than their conventional cousins.

I thought the Germans had a 75mm prototype of a Saboted shell, aluminum sabots or something of the sort. (I don't know for certain).

Frankly, this 30mm thing seems more like a squeezebore type of deal.

[Transvaal Vrystaat]

You'll likely need to rebarrel it as well. Saboted rounds generally have tighter spin rates than their conventional cousins.

Wouldn't it just need to be smoothbore?

You're not going to have APFSDS in WWII, so no.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Wouldn't it just need to be smoothbore?

Depends. Saboted can mean a great many things, ranging from flechettes, which do require a smooth bore, to SLAP/CBJ style subprojectiles which still require some amount of rifling.

I agree with Ulfr though. Interwar 30mm shells sound like more of a squeezebore affair.

---

I thought the Germans had a 75mm prototype of a Saboted shell, aluminum sabots or something of the sort. (I don't know for certain).

They probably did, all told. Saboted rounds still generally require tighter rifling to stabilize though, being either longer or lighter than full-bored equivalents. Compare 7.62mm NAVO M80s to SLAPs.

[Fordorsia]

So is the entire bore tapered or is it just the muzzle device that is tapered?

[Eisarn-Ara]

So is the entire bore tapered or is it just the muzzle device that is tapered?

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

So is the entire bore tapered or is it just the muzzle device that is tapered?

It can go either way. Most purpose-built squeezebore barrels have a gradual taper along the entire length. There were also adaptors like the Littlejohn which screwed onto the end of a barrel.

[Fordorsia]

uuuuuuuuuuh something tells me this is wrong. Does it need to have a complete shell or can be it be used with just disk things?

pls don't be mean

[Eisarn-Ara]

uuuuuuuuuuh something tells me this is wrong. Does it need to have a complete shell or can be it be used with just disk things?

(Image)

pls don't be mean

[Korva]

make a HEAT grenade attachment

[Puzikas]

It is for eating up interwar tanks and doing significant damage to WWII tanks.

One thing that's kinda odd about this is that early tanks didn't have much in the way of armor, so it didn't take a whole lot to penetrate it. Most of the anti-tank rifles of the interwar era seem to be between 7.92mm and 13.5mm.

Most were 20mm AFAIK. There were naturally the Boyz, the Pol&ish one, the PTRS/D and the two German ones, but the L-39, S-18/100-/1000-/1100, Jaoans AT rifle and several others were all 20mm.


The most effective AT rifle of the era AFAIK against tanks was the S-18/1000 with its 42mm pen at 100m. This gives it the ability to reasonably penetrate most wartime era light tanks and, from the sides, a number of medium tanks.

Ford, what kind of specs on your shell do we have? If you can't I can probably calculate penetration. Or Aquiz will come along and do it.

[Fordorsia]

uuuuuuuuuuh something tells me this is wrong. Does it need to have a complete shell or can be it be used with just disk things?

(Image)

pls don't be mean

Wouldn't the shell inhibit the core's penetration ability?

Ford, what kind of specs on your shell do we have? If you can't I can probably calculate penetration. Or Aquiz will come along and do it.

Well I only have the measurements. No idea how to do volume of the case or whatever else you'd need. And I haven't got the case wall thickness either.

[Sevvania]

Most were 20mm AFAIK. There were naturally the Boyz, the Pol&ish one, the PTRS/D and the two German ones, but the L-39, S-18/100-/1000-/1100, Jaoans AT rifle and several others were all 20mm.

I left the PTRD and the PTRS out because the PTRD was adopted in 1941, and I'd consider that to be during WWII. Completely forgot about the Japanese Type 97 (which was designed in 1937) and stuff, though. I guess it depends on which part of the Interwar-era you're looking at, the mid-to-late 1920s part or the "World War II is tomorrow" part.

[Fordorsia]

Most were 20mm AFAIK. There were naturally the Boyz, the Pol&ish one, the PTRS/D and the two German ones, but the L-39, S-18/100-/1000-/1100, Jaoans AT rifle and several others were all 20mm.

I left the PTRD and the PTRS out because the PTRD was adopted in 1941, and I'd consider that to be during WWII. Completely forgot about the Japanese Type 97 (which was designed in 1937) and stuff, though. I guess it depends on which part of the Interwar-era you're looking at, the mid-1920s part or the "World War II is tomorrow" part.

I was hoping that my rifle would be introduced in the mid 20s or something. Because overkill is the only way you can be certain of anything.

[Arkandros]

One thing that's kinda odd about this is that early tanks didn't have much in the way of armor, so it didn't take a whole lot to penetrate it. Most of the anti-tank rifles of the interwar era seem to be between 7.92mm and 13.5mm.

I guess Fordorsia chose the path of making sure the tank was dead in one shot over the path of shooting it a bunch in the hopes that you hit crewmembers.

There's always the option of designing it to counter infantry tanks, like the British Matilda. If your enemies focused on similar designs (sacrificing firepower and speed for armor), a large-caliber AT gun makes sense. Alternatively, you could turn it into an early tank gun, which, given its caliber, would be rather effective against both interwar tanks and early WWII tanks.
An alternative history would probably provide a good explanation too; if it was developed in WWI, it could have been an effective anti-fortification weapon, and could have evolved into an anti-tank weapon. Because it already existed and proved its effectiveness, it's unlikely your nation would have sought to replace it with a smaller caliber AT rifle.

[Slavtania]

I'm going to guess the advantages of the Squeeze/Taper Bore guns from the mid 20th Century are emulated if not straight up improved on by APFSDS ammunition?

Probably easier on the barrel/all parts involved as well I'd imagine. I'm speaking mostly from the dumb part of my brain that wants to modernize 20th century ideals to work better for the 21st.

[Aqizithiuda]

Wouldn't the shell inhibit the core's penetration ability?

Ford, what kind of specs on your shell do we have? If you can't I can probably calculate penetration. Or Aquiz will come along and do it.

Well I only have the measurements. No idea how to do volume of the case or whatever else you'd need. And I haven't got the case wall thickness either.

Nothing I have will calculate case capacity for anything much over the .50 BMG (not without a case weight, that is), so I mostly look at similarly sized cartridges and their performance, then do a bodgey scale up or scale down.

I'm going to guess the advantages of the Squeeze/Taper Bore guns from the mid 20th Century are emulated if not straight up improved on by APFSDS ammunition?

Probably easier on the barrel/all parts involved as well I'd imagine. I'm speaking mostly from the dumb part of my brain that wants to modernize 20th century ideals to work better for the 21st.

Generally speaking:

APFSDS>APDS>Squeezebore=>APCR>Solid AP.

[Fordorsia]

Wouldn't the shell inhibit the core's penetration ability?



Well I only have the measurements. No idea how to do volume of the case or whatever else you'd need. And I haven't got the case wall thickness either.

Nothing I have will calculate case capacity for anything much over the .50 BMG (not without a case weight, that is), so I mostly look at similarly sized cartridges and their performance, then do a bodgey scale up or scale down.

So what info do I need to give you to get a rough estimate of how good or shit it is? Just the measurements of every surface or something?

I guess Fordorsia chose the path of making sure the tank was dead in one shot over the path of shooting it a bunch in the hopes that you hit crewmembers.

There's always the option of designing it to counter infantry tanks, like the British Matilda. If your enemies focused on similar designs (sacrificing firepower and speed for armor), a large-caliber AT gun makes sense. Alternatively, you could turn it into an early tank gun, which, given its caliber, would be rather effective against both interwar tanks and early WWII tanks.
An alternative history would probably provide a good explanation too; if it was developed in WWI, it could have been an effective anti-fortification weapon, and could have evolved into an anti-tank weapon. Because it already existed and proved its effectiveness, it's unlikely your nation would have sought to replace it with a smaller caliber AT rifle.

Could work. I suppose it all depends on the estimated penetration though.

[Aqizithiuda]

Nothing I have will calculate case capacity for anything much over the .50 BMG (not without a case weight, that is), so I mostly look at similarly sized cartridges and their performance, then do a bodgey scale up or scale down.

So what info do I need to give you to get a rough estimate of how good or shit it is? Just the measurements of every surface or something?

There's always the option of designing it to counter infantry tanks, like the British Matilda. If your enemies focused on similar designs (sacrificing firepower and speed for armor), a large-caliber AT gun makes sense. Alternatively, you could turn it into an early tank gun, which, given its caliber, would be rather effective against both interwar tanks and early WWII tanks.
An alternative history would probably provide a good explanation too; if it was developed in WWI, it could have been an effective anti-fortification weapon, and could have evolved into an anti-tank weapon. Because it already existed and proved its effectiveness, it's unlikely your nation would have sought to replace it with a smaller caliber AT rifle.

Could work. I suppose it all depends on the estimated penetration though.

Shoulder diameter, neck diameter, base diameter, rim thickness and case weight or capacity.