NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Puzikas]

It's a bit harder when you're being shot at than a magazine, hence why magazines out did them.

I suppose "complicated" was a poor word choice, maybe "less efficient than magazine" would work.
Its also the case that very often chargers like to really grip the rim hard and make pushing difficult. The SKS chargers are especially notorious for this, but this really might just be because of their general age.
The chargers for the Vz. 58 don't have the same issue

[EsToVnIa]

rly if somebody wants to use SKS is just to use a Type-56 Model M and work from there

[NeuPolska]

I would say the SF 55x series is really already modernized.

That's quite a departure, moving from a rifle from 1945 to a rifle from 1985.

I should also like to correct some misconceptions of the rifle you have.

I had the feeling that the SKS was outdated before coming here, but also figured I might as well try to make a case for it. Since the short answer seems to be no, I went for something that seemed pretty reliable and more modern than the SKS

Your corrections are duly noted.

AK-74Ms would be better pick imo.

My standard rifle is already the FB Beryl, which isn't too different from the AK-74M. I just wanted something a bit different for the more specialized parts of the military.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

My standard rifle is already the FB Beryl, which isn't too different from the AK-74M. I just wanted something a bit different for the more specialized parts of the military.

Well, there really isn't that much of a need for different small arms for specialised military branches. Now if you wanted something for say, special forces, then the AS Val would suffice. Otherwise, you won't really need another rifle.

[NeuPolska]

My standard rifle is already the FB Beryl, which isn't too different from the AK-74M. I just wanted something a bit different for the more specialized parts of the military.

Well, there really isn't that much of a need for different small arms for specialised military branches. Now if you wanted something for say, special forces, then the AS Val would suffice. Otherwise, you won't really need another rifle.

Maybe not, but a lot of various armies seem to have several rifles in service in varying numbers. Those Sigs I'm looking into would just be an alternative to distinguish different troops a bit and give them some sort of edge that the Beryl doesn't have. Nothing wrong with a little variation if you ask me, and I'm quite sure that those Sigs use the same ammunition as the Beryls.

[The IASM]

Would it be possible to "fix" the Kh-90 so it can be used in an SSGN or not-Kirov battle cruiser as a heavy anti-ship missile?

[Allanea]

Okay, here's a real question I have.

Now this is a bit controversial and I anticipate it's going to cause some arguments.

As anyone who has seen Full Metal Jacket knows, joining the armed forces is a fairly painful experience. Drill instructors are essentially masters in inflicting emotional (and sometimes physical) pain and discomfort. Sometimes this is tied to actually bad performance by the troops, but often it is deliberately arbitrary, designed deliberately to stress the recruit so they get ready for the conditions of military service. If you don't serve in actual combat, then it's fully possible that boot camp is perhaps the least healthy part of the service.

Indeed, had this behavior been carried out in nearly any other areas of life, it would be decried broadly as a form of emotional and possibly physical abuse. The actual degree of this behavior varies historically, in some IDF units there are limits on just how hurtful instructors can be in addressing the troops, and in some countries physical violence was almost openly permitted until recently. Hazing, and in some extreme cases (like Imperial Japan) even use of weapons against the troops have come up.

Generally speaking this is considered by most people as necessary for military service - it prepares a man or woman used to peaceful (and often highly individualistic) society for the privations and militarized collectivism of military service.

However I have a question - I remember that there were some experts who advocated a departure from this sort of training style. Does anyone remember who these people were, what studies if any they backed up their advocacy with, and whether it was ever attempted?

[Chinese Peoples]

http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/karatachi.jpg

Anybody? Would make good officer's swords?

[Allanea]

The only questions are...

1. Is it short enough not to be unwieldy?
2. Is it light enough?

The officer is not going to kill anyone with his sword.

[Imperializt Russia]

Figured I might as well tweak the light rifle squad now that it's relevant

Changes:
- The AT Grenadier now has a rifle with three magazines instead of a carbine with six magazines.
- The Squad MG now has a GPMG 1000-rpm hamburger remover in 7.62x54mmR rather than an LMG in 7.62x39mm. The Squad MG operator also has a pistol for self-defense. MG ammunition is redistributed due to the rifle team shuffle-up but the overall load is the same, 9x 100-round boxes.
- One of the AT-riflemen was replaced by a marksman with a rifle in 7.62x54mmR. Initially I was going to give the marksman a sidearm as well, but then I realized that his main weapon has about the same dimensions, cartridge, and action as the FN FAL. So naturally, following the overall trend of "fightiest squad," I gave it 20-round magazines and added a full-auto setting. The marksman is now capable removing hamburger at 600 rounds per minute, or removing hamburger from 800 meters away.
- To preserve firepower, the removed AT-rifleman's AT launcher has been moved to the Corporal.
- The "stack of magazines" icon has been replaced by a magazine with a counter next to it. This does not include the magazine in the rifle.

(Image)

iirc automatic weapons using box magazines have some feeding troubles with rimmed cartridges.

IIRC you just have to be careful you load the magazine properly.
The BREN gun fired rimmed cartridges from a box magazine, of course.

[The Soodean Imperium]

- The AT Grenadier now has a rifle with three magazines instead of a carbine with six magazines.

Is this done because you're goal is to save weight, or to increase engagment distance?
Because by and large your maximum range with your carbine and rifle, unless there's a huge disparity between the length of barrels, will be about the same. Most Infantrymen are only capable of accurately firing at individual targets at 400m, and most Infantrymen in combat are only effective to 200-300m, a distance perfectly capable for a carbine

To save weight, and because back when I originally posted this a year and a half ago someone told me I might as well go all rifles instead of giving some squad members carbines.

Which, again, is why I considered switching to a pistol for the ultimate weight savings. Which could possibly free up enough weight and space for an additional AT rocket.

- The Squad MG now has a GPMG 1000-rpm hamburger remover in 7.62x54mmR rather than an LMG in 7.62x39mm. The Squad MG operator also has a pistol for self-defense. MG ammunition is redistributed due to the rifle team shuffle-up but the overall load is the same, 9x 100-round boxes.

Recoil is going to be massive, ammunition consumption excessive, barrel changes frequent, and no noticeable increase in supressive ability in particular will come from firing so fast.
The switch to 7.62x54mmR is fine, but if you desire a high fire rate, it might be better to use 7.62x39mm as you had before.

Yeah, I fell prey to the "dakka = better" fallacy. Maybe this would be acceptable on a tripod or vehicle mount, which (ICly and OOCly) is what I originally designed this GPMG for. I guess I'll take the easy way out and introduce a new GPMG with the same cartridge and a lower fire rate but greater barrel life or reliability or whatever.

Also there needs to be significantly more taper of a 20 round 7.62x54mmR magazine.
Also also avoid such large capacity magazines with 7.62x54mmR.
Also also also avoid high fire rates with magazine fed 7.62x54mmR

How much of this would be fixed by retconning in, say, 7.62x51mm (or some rimless cartridge with matching dimensions) as my main sniper-and-MG round? The Soviet Union doesn't exist in my canon so I'm not limited to 7.62x54mmR.

>not 5.45x39

From what little I know about 5.45x39mm, its tumbling effect makes it good against soft targets comes at the cost of poor effectiveness against body armor, which is why I stuck with 7.62x39. This is possibly a myth though, Puz probably has something to say about it.

Although come to think of it, ICly at the time when my military was adopting these weapons it was mainly facing enemies with limited use of body armor... so I may retcon in 5.45mm after all, supplemented by its armor-piercing variants.

[Imperializt Russia]

Obviously I hardly study small arms, but I don't recall hearing suggestion that 5.45 struggled at barrier or armour penetration. Obviously armour-piercing loads of 5.45 are also available. But I'm not familiar with their construction (though I think they use tungsten?).

[Questers]

I would choose 5.45 over 7.62. It is lighter and smaller, has a flatter trajectory and possibly better sustainable range. I also think 5.45 might be easier to shoot and easier to learn to shoot, although I say that from the view of having actually fired neither. I am sure that being hit by a 7.62 is worse if you're wearing armour (and that a 7.62 can penetrate things a 5.45 can't) but I don't see that as a big deal. If there's a chap in your squad who is very good at hitting people in the chest at 300 yards then give that man a DMR or some kind of optic.

If you have a highly professional Army with soldiers who stay in the forces for five or six or eight years, and who get to fire off 100s of 000s of rounds in practice, then you may as well give them some kind of optic which can help them shoot more accurately at longer ranges. But if the main purpose of the infantry team is to put lots of rounds downrange, then the main defining characteristic should imo be how many of those rounds can those people carry into the forward area.

Just my 2c. Same reasoning that 5.56 > 7.62 NATO. But maybe less extensive, as 7.62x39 is still quite smaller than 7.62x51 and much closer to 5.45x39.

[Purpelia]

Just go with my 5.5mm Purpelian. It's basically 5.45×39mm but with a serious case of roidrage.

[Questers]

NEWER

[Purpelia]

As is thine prerogative.

[Imperializt Russia]

I already made a roidraging 5.45

[Purpelia]

Mind if I compare it to mine by putting it on a combined diagram? Basically I've been thinking of making a big diagram of the various NS bullets anyway and you're is just so nicely drawn in terms of having all the dimensions that it would be an easy start. I'd also include some RL rounds for comparison.

[Imperializt Russia]

Fair.

I don't think I ever asked if having the projectile seated so deeply (to keep OAL equal to 5.56 so 5.56 mags can be used, as the projectile is about 5mm longer than 5.56) would have a particular effect.
Though being 5.45 stuck in a 5.56 case does apparently make it quite powerful, relative to both 5.45 and 5.56

[Puzikas]

To save weight, and because back when I originally posted this a year and a half ago someone told me I might as well go all rifles instead of giving some squad members carbines.

That's fair. You'd actually generally save weight by keeping the Carbine, since the mass between a carbine and a rifle will probably end up being one of two magazines as it were. Ammunition being the 3rd most valuable commodity of Infantrymen.

Yeah, I fell prey to the "dakka = better" fallacy.

A crime punishable by death!
It's not necessary a fallacy, it's just you'll encounter issues, and suffer diminishing returns. This is especially true with GPMGs.
So it's more a dichotomy?

Maybe this would be acceptable on a tripod or vehicle mount, which (ICly and OOCly) is what I originally designed this GPMG for. I guess I'll take the easy way out and introduce a new GPMG with the same cartridge and a lower fire rate but greater barrel life or reliability or whatever.

The T33 rides again!

How much of this would be fixed by retconning in, say, 7.62x51mm (or some rimless cartridge with matching dimensions) as my main sniper-and-MG round? The Soviet Union doesn't exist in my canon so I'm not limited to 7.62x54mmR.

Would literally fix all those issues.
7.62x54mmR is a good round, but the rim makes it less battle rifle and more machine gun/Marksman rifle.

From what little I know about 5.45x39mm, its tumbling effect makes it good against soft targets comes at the cost of poor effectiveness against body armor, which is why I stuck with 7.62x39. This is possibly a myth though, Puz probably has something to say about it.

Lots to say about 5.45x39mm

Originally the 7N6 loading was found to penetrate barriers poorly in the Soviet War in Afghanistan, so the USSR started production of the 7N6M to improve barrier and armor penetration. C. 1987, but demise of the Soviet Union and the difficulties of the new Russian state delayed massed issue of 7N6M through the Chechen War, which is where Russia fell back in love with 7.62x39mm Kalashnikovs.
7N6M can penetrate 6mm hardened steel at 300m (Representing Russian penetration of a NATO helmet) and defeats modern body armor at 80m.
7N10 is the current issue ammunition of Russia, and can defeat standard NIJ level III armor at 200m easily.
7N10 perforated barriers much better than its predecessors, and offers a larger wound cavity.

The AP stuff is just nasty against armor and generally falls into the category of funny. 7N24 will penetrate a NIJ IV vest, trauma pad, and man at something like 300m.

If barrier penetration is a consideration for you 5.45 7N10 is the ideal balance of a modern intermediate cartridge and performance, but masonry has never and will never be a friend to the SCHV family of cartridges: their ability to overcome hardened medium is has always been an issue.

Obviously I hardly study small arms, but I don't recall hearing suggestion that 5.45 struggled at barrier or armour penetration

Most of the insinuation comes from salty old guys like me who fought in Chechnya 1 and didn't fight in Chechnya 2, or from opinions formulated from their anecdotal evidence. I was lucky to have gotten 7N6M and 7N10 at the time so I didn't suffer barrier issues until we outran our supplies.
At the tine I didn't have the smal arms knowledge I do now, I actually assumed that it was because the ammunition I was using was "soft". That was the term we used-нежный, nezhnyy. I think that would better be translated as "tender" or "gentle". Because we're sinical.
That's what made me eventually take that AKM. 7.62x39mm was EVERYWHERE.

But yes, 5.45x39mm 7N10 uses a 1.8 gram 65(?) HRC steel penetrator surrounded by a lead-alloy body and copper jacket. When perforating soft medium the hollow nose cavity compresses, deforms, and rips appart during yaw, which makes the most foul wound cavity short of fragmenting 7.62x51mm NATO, usually averaging in volume about 57-67cm³ with a net penetration of soft medium of about 360-400mm. Against more solid medium the nose cavity crushes flat and the penetrator takes over.

I would choose 5.45 over 7.62.

I generally would as well, but I tend not to tell people to replace 7.62x39mm with 5.45 because 7.62 remains a viable modern Infantry cartridge for the most part. It's definitely my preference to use 5.45x39mm.

possibly better sustainable range.

Maximum point blank zero is further with 5.45x39mm, maximum"terminal" range with 7.62x39mm is further.
Not that it matters since plunging fire is dumb and both these rounds were designed in an era when this was understood.

I also think 5.45 might be easier to shoot and easier to learn to shoot, although I say that from the view of having actually fired neither. I am sure that being hit by a 7.62 is worse if you're wearing armour (and that a 7.62 can penetrate things a 5.45 can't) but I don't see that as a big deal.

Past a point in terms of recoil, there's no significant difference in general ease to learn on, if you're teaching semi-automatic fire: that point being 13 Joules of recoil energy, which all modern intermediates fall under. But automatic fire, yes, 5.45x39mm is far easier to learn on, is more controllable, and just a better cartridge.

7.62x39mm from an AKM is not actually uncontrollable. A shooter must know what they are doing but in short bursts is not particularly difficult. It's certainly far less than the 7.62x51mm, something a lot of critics of the AKM will swear up and down is controllable if you know what you're doing.

if the main purpose of the infantry team is to put lots of rounds downrange, then the main defining characteristic should imo be how many of those rounds can those people carry into the forward area.

Correct (quote partial because I'm on my phone)
Only thing is that the notion of accurate sectional fire is really, really overstated. Volume of fire is significantly more damning than a slow and steady creep of individual rifle fire. The SDM is the only place this works well, and not everyone aught to be an SDM.
Optics have many advantages. Indeed, there part of virtually every future Infantrymans kit, the only one omitting them I've seen is about focusing more on comms and armor.

I already made a roidraging 5.45
(Image)

[/quote]

You guys do not know the glory of 5.65x48mm Skandar and its 78cm³ wound volume.
If I ever stop being lazy I'll do it.

[Questers]

When perforating soft medium the hollow nose cavity compresses, deforms, and rips appart during yaw, which makes the most foul wound cavity short of fragmenting 7.62x51mm NATO, usually averaging in volume about 57-67cm³ with a net penetration of soft medium of about 360-400mm. Against more solid medium the nose cavity crushes flat and the penetrator takes over.

Reading about small arms post-penetration makes me feel happy that I did not put infantry in my main three choices for my army application.

If that works out I should be able to post some nice spergs on NS tho

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Why is it that water-cooled machine guns were used for so long? The M1917 was apparently used all the way up to Vietnam, and the Vickers was used through the Korean war. The way I've always seen it, water-cooled machine guns are generally able to fire for longer periods of time, but changes in how machine guns are used and improvements in weapons technology have largely negated these advantages.

[Imperializt Russia]

They were in the arsenals, and they worked.

[Puzikas]

Reading about small arms post-penetration makes me feel happy that I did not put infantry in my main three choices for my army application.

Casual
Fall for the promises of glory and adventure for the motherland like I did and accidently end up Infantry.

Why is it that water-cooled machine guns were used for so long? The M1917 was apparently used all the way up to Vietnam, and the Vickers was used through the Korean war. The way I've always seen it, water-cooled machine guns are generally able to fire for longer periods of time, but changes in how machine guns are used and improvements in weapons technology have largely negated these advantages.

High volumes of fire are always desierable
Vickers was EVERYWHERE
M1917 was on all sorts of things

[Imperializt Russia]

I did decide that if I did join the reserves and I would do it in infantry.
But then I'd want to go to officer school, and officers don't fire crew-served machine guns.