Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]

[Korva]

[Austrasien]

Sooper SUVs aside I'm sure you've all seen the speculation that the US will be ditching 5.56x45mm, and the M4, for a more powerful Infantry cartridge.

Ah but the joke is on them. The US Army does not just "buy" things.

[Gallia-]

(Image)

Why are they not white?

Sooper SUVs aside I'm sure you've all seen the speculation that the US will be ditching 5.56x45mm, and the M4, for a more powerful Infantry cartridge.

Ah but the joke is on them. The US Army does not just "buy" things.

Gotta spend 10 years to buy a pistol!

[The Federation of Kendor]

How does modern infantry works?

[Prosorusiya]

Any opinions on the SVT-40 as a sniper rifle in a modern setting? It's not ideal, but I think it is the best my person can afford at the moment (I'm rp-ing in a Ukraine\Syria type situation where the weapons are what ever the rebels smuggled in) which I hope to replace with a SVD as soon as I can.

[Gallia-]

Any opinions on the SVT-40 as a sniper rifle in a modern setting? It's not ideal, but I think it is the best my person can afford at the moment (I'm rp-ing in a Ukraine\Syria type situation where the weapons are what ever the rebels smuggled in) which I hope to replace with a SVD as soon as I can.

SVT-40 is a museum piece.

Tabuk or PSL would be more common.

[Puzikas]

So, "Heavy" intermediate round. Which makes me think. Would it make sense to develop a new AR, with modular parts (Could use 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm, several barrel length [12" to 20" inch])rail (Picatinny/M-LOK/RIS/Keymod), long/short stroke action or lever/roller delayed blowback and issue it as standard issue AR? Might as well accept 7.62x39mm as SPC, in use for certain elements (Assault Engineers, amongst them), without replacing 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm.

It's honestly going to be something more like an "optimal" but probably less.
Probably like .264 US or 6.5 Grendel, which might actually just replace 7.62x51mm NATO and allow the continued use if 5.56x45mm NATO.
Which again I think that the best version of 5.56x45mm that proves to be a more suitable choice than the heavy AR round is going to be the 77gr Mk. 262 Mod. 0/1, but really more fire means more suppressing more suppressing means more killing and more killing means less dying

As for caliber swap, it's not useful outside of a limited spectrum of uses and certainly not for everyone.

Any opinions on the SVT-40 as a sniper rifle in a modern setting?

They initially had a lot of vertical drift. This was fixed but it wasn't worth it.
You can afford SVDs. SVTs were rare at the height of their use.
There were more SVDs built than there were SVTs by a huge margin.

How does modern infantry works?

Infantry take and hold land, conduct assaults, and dig themselves into positions and defend them.
They support and are supported by tanks, AFVs, APCs and trucks.
You can't win a war without them, and likewise infantry can not win a war on their own. Your question is a broad one. There are hundreds, thousands of books written on the subject of modern infantry. Specific questions are needed to really learn or else you'll get lost in the sea of information.

[Puzikas]

(Image)

[WAKE ME UP]

[Prosorusiya]

So, "Heavy" intermediate round. Which makes me think. Would it make sense to develop a new AR, with modular parts (Could use 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm, several barrel length [12" to 20" inch])rail (Picatinny/M-LOK/RIS/Keymod), long/short stroke action or lever/roller delayed blowback and issue it as standard issue AR? Might as well accept 7.62x39mm as SPC, in use for certain elements (Assault Engineers, amongst them), without replacing 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm.

It's honestly going to be something more like an "optimal" but probably less.
Probably like .264 US or 6.5 Grendel, which might actually just replace 7.62x51mm NATO and allow the continued use if 5.56x45mm NATO.
Which again I think that the best version of 5.56x45mm that proves to be a more suitable choice than the heavy AR round is going to be the 77gr Mk. 262 Mod. 0/1, but really more fire means more suppressing more suppressing means more killing and more killing means less dying

As for caliber swap, it's not useful outside of a limited spectrum of uses and certainly not for everyone.

Any opinions on the SVT-40 as a sniper rifle in a modern setting?

They initially had a lot of vertical drift. This was fixed but it wasn't worth it.
You can afford SVDs. SVTs were rare at the height of their use.
There were more SVDs built than there were SVTs by a huge margin.

How does modern infantry works?

Infantry take and hold land, conduct assaults, and dig themselves into positions and defend them.
They support and are supported by tanks, AFVs, APCs and trucks.
You can't win a war without them, and likewise infantry can not win a war on their own. Your question is a broad one. There are hundreds, thousands of books written on the subject of modern infantry. Specific questions are needed to really learn or else you'll get lost in the sea of information.

Yeah, I can totally afford the SVD in my normal setting, but the DM for that specific RP thread made things kinda way too pricy. I'd heard of the vertical drift but was unsure of the veracity of the statement.

I didn't like the changes I was having to make to the character to make her "sniper material" persona wise, so instead I made her a grenadier\trench shotgun person instead. I figure a mercenary who was ex-VV would find that kind of weapon more familiar, and Nina is more of the "drive a tank through their front door if they don't come out" type, having the blood of Cossacks in her, and so short range but deadly weapons fit her personality much better. So 5xF1 grenades and an M1897 trench Shotgun later... this should be fun!

[Crookfur]

How does modern infantry works?

You put beans and bullets in one end and death and shit comes out the other...

[Prosorusiya]

You should put tha tin your signature, Crookfur!

So I've discovered the Norinco 97... damn I think I might have a second favorite gun now. Also, so making that the standard MVD shotgun!

[Gallia-]

You should put tha tin your signature, Crookfur!

So I've discovered the Norinco 97... damn I think I might have a second favorite gun now. Also, so making that the standard MVD shotgun!

You know that's literally a copy of the Winchester 1897, right?

[Prosorusiya]

Indeed. This is why it is awesome, because the originals are not particularly affordable (in trench sweeper form at least). Otherwise, it is perfect (ly badass). All hail St. John Browning.

[Gallia-]

Americans in 1897 probably made it better than Norinco in 1997 TBH.

[Maverica]

Alright. I have a question. How would motorized truck mounted infantry for strategic maneuvering and with foldable lightweight bicycles for tactical movement or even strategic if the terrian is very rough work? I have read a few articles about advantages of equipping light infantry with lightweight foldable Mountian bikes. Both paratroopers and light truck infantry.

Behold the bicycle infantry

http://www.combatreform.org/atb.htm

Here is where I got most of my facts and ideas. The writer has made a very good argument for bicycles to be used in coexistence with light vehicals and even tanks. Though he does talk about paratroopers most of the time he does mention ground forces several times.

My plan is to form Regiments of Motor Cyclists (need a name). These regiments would comprise of two battalions each with all infantry mounted on light trucks carrying about 8 people each with the bicycles folded up and hanging on the side and in storage racks. Every Battalion will have a Heavy weapons company equipped with 80mm mortars (possible mounted on a ATV or maybe just carried around) and an anti tank section with RPG 29s. (Possible mounted on atvs or carried on bicycle) the the remaining 4 companies would be regular rifle companies. (Should I have a logistic section in each battalion or wait until regiment)

Then at the regimental level possible 120mm mortars mounted on Polaris Rangers would be used for artillery (us military are experimenting with this system of 120mm mortar, also possible keep a heavy anti tank section at regimental level?) Then at regiment a logistics company would be attached.

The idea of this setup is for light infantry to be able to move strategically in trucks then dismount and ride bicycles supported by ATVs/Rangers for weapons carriers across rough terrian or even regular terrian to gain tactical mobility over so called foot sluggers or even dismounted infantry. (Though I do not plan to use them against mech infantry unless supported by attached tank units)

So tell me my infantry experts. What do you think is this a feasible unit with genuine advantages or just junk. (Ps. The largest combined unit would be Brigades with about 5 of these motor cyclist regiments combined with maybe a tank battalion)

Any suggestions to make it better if it's good would be open.

[Crookfur]

Alright. I have a question. How would motorized truck mounted infantry for strategic maneuvering and with foldable lightweight bicycles for tactical movement or even strategic if the terrian is very rough work? I have read a few articles about advantages of equipping light infantry with lightweight foldable Mountian bikes. Both paratroopers and light truck infantry.

Behold the bicycle infantry

http://www.combatreform.org/atb.htm

Here is where I got most of my facts and ideas. The writer has made a very good argument for bicycles to be used in coexistence with light vehicals and even tanks. Though he does talk about paratroopers most of the time he does mention ground forces several times.

My plan is to form Regiments of Motor Cyclists (need a name). These regiments would comprise of two battalions each with all infantry mounted on light trucks carrying about 8 people each with the bicycles folded up and hanging on the side and in storage racks. Every Battalion will have a Heavy weapons company equipped with 80mm mortars (possible mounted on a ATV or maybe just carried around) and an anti tank section with RPG 29s. (Possible mounted on atvs or carried on bicycle) the the remaining 4 companies would be regular rifle companies. (Should I have a logistic section in each battalion or wait until regiment)

Then at the regimental level possible 120mm mortars mounted on Polaris Rangers would be used for artillery (us military are experimenting with this system of 120mm mortar, also possible keep a heavy anti tank section at regimental level?) Then at regiment a logistics company would be attached.

The idea of this setup is for light infantry to be able to move strategically in trucks then dismount and ride bicycles supported by ATVs/Rangers for weapons carriers across rough terrian or even regular terrian to gain tactical mobility over so called foot sluggers or even dismounted infantry. (Though I do not plan to use them against mech infantry unless supported by attached tank units)

So tell me my infantry experts. What do you think is this a feasible unit with genuine advantages or just junk. (Ps. The largest combined unit would be Brigades with about 5 of these motor cyclist regiments combined with maybe a tank battalion)

Any suggestions to make it better if it's good would be open.

Reading sparky and not an immediate convert to the cult of the areogavin! Now that is remarkable.

Honestly the bikes just seem like an extra degree of complication. Light trucks can go most of where ever a bicycle can and for the last part of an approach you will want to be doing it in fighting order ie on foot weapons at the ready. Adding an intermediate mode of transport with a potentially much higher risk of injuries just seems pointless. It made sense during ww2 and the early cold war for paratroopers but once the airlift and capable light weight trucks became available the need has simply vanished.

[Ardavia]

Alright. I have a question. How would motorized truck mounted infantry for strategic maneuvering and with foldable lightweight bicycles for tactical movement or even strategic if the terrian is very rough work? I have read a few articles about advantages of equipping light infantry with lightweight foldable Mountian bikes. Both paratroopers and light truck infantry.

Behold the bicycle infantry

http://www.combatreform.org/atb.htm

Here is where I got most of my facts and ideas. The writer has made a very good argument for bicycles to be used in coexistence with light vehicals and even tanks. Though he does talk about paratroopers most of the time he does mention ground forces several times.

My plan is to form Regiments of Motor Cyclists (need a name). These regiments would comprise of two battalions each with all infantry mounted on light trucks carrying about 8 people each with the bicycles folded up and hanging on the side and in storage racks. Every Battalion will have a Heavy weapons company equipped with 80mm mortars (possible mounted on a ATV or maybe just carried around) and an anti tank section with RPG 29s. (Possible mounted on atvs or carried on bicycle) the the remaining 4 companies would be regular rifle companies. (Should I have a logistic section in each battalion or wait until regiment)

Then at the regimental level possible 120mm mortars mounted on Polaris Rangers would be used for artillery (us military are experimenting with this system of 120mm mortar, also possible keep a heavy anti tank section at regimental level?) Then at regiment a logistics company would be attached.

The idea of this setup is for light infantry to be able to move strategically in trucks then dismount and ride bicycles supported by ATVs/Rangers for weapons carriers across rough terrian or even regular terrian to gain tactical mobility over so called foot sluggers or even dismounted infantry. (Though I do not plan to use them against mech infantry unless supported by attached tank units)

So tell me my infantry experts. What do you think is this a feasible unit with genuine advantages or just junk. (Ps. The largest combined unit would be Brigades with about 5 of these motor cyclist regiments combined with maybe a tank battalion)

Any suggestions to make it better if it's good would be open.

If you have trucks (and evidently, you do) for moving them about, there's really no reason to not skip on the bikes and just drive them to where they need in trucks, and then have them dismount from the trucks where they would otherwise drop the bikes, since they're going to fight dismounted in either case.

[Minroz]

Say, does anyone know about wristblades from Predator movies?

Thoughts about them?

[Purpelia]

Say, does anyone know about wristblades from Predator movies?

Thoughts about them?

I'd call them strictly worse than having a dagger. Basically the only way you'll be using them is as a dagger. But at the same time you can't change grip, can't throw them, can't holster/put away them when you need to go to the toilet and there really is no benefit to having two of them.

Really the whole thing only makes sense in the context of it being a ritual/cultural weapon meant to serve as a dagger like object but mostly as a weapon you can't ever lose.

[Husseinarti]

How does modern infantry works?

They bitch and whine, mostly.

"Its too hot."
"Its cold."
"I'm hungry."
"I stepped on a landmine and blew my foot off."
"My wife just mailed me divorce paperwork."

You know...

Normal stuff.

Say, does anyone know about wristblades from Predator movies?

Thoughts about them?

I'd give it 2/10 wew'd lads and a 6 on the Assassin's Creed scale.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Americans in 1897 probably made it better than Norinco in 1997 TBH.

I know a few people who own them (Yay Canada!) and plan to get one myself. I also know a few people who own originals, including three people who own both.
So apparently it depends on the year of manufacture for the Norinco model. Early models were terrible, newer models are good. But that isn't absolute. I know a guy with a mint condition original Winchester and he bought a Norinco not long after they came out for sale here so he could have a "cheaper" one to play with, and he swears by its build quality. I also know a guy who got one for Christmas recently and it's already broken twice.

(Image)

[WAKE ME UP]

Giggidy Giggidy.

[Free-Don]

Say, does anyone know about wristblades from Predator movies?

Thoughts about them?

They're like brass knuckles, except they limit hand movement in a worse way. They're like a push dagger, except it's longer, heavier, and worse at cutting.

2/10 Not Worf it.

[Rhodesialund]

I know a few people who own them (Yay Canada!) and plan to get one myself. I also know a few people who own originals, including three people who own both.
So apparently it depends on the year of manufacture for the Norinco model. Early models were terrible, newer models are good. But that isn't absolute. I know a guy with a mint condition original Winchester and he bought a Norinco not long after they came out for sale here so he could have a "cheaper" one to play with, and he swears by its build quality. I also know a guy who got one for Christmas recently and it's already broken twice.

I've abused a Norinco M1A before, it ran like a sewing machine while a friend used his Springfield M1A. Springfield choked hard during the competition. But then again, Springfield's M1A quality took a fucking dive after they switched contracts, but now they are okay.

[Fordorsia]

Say, does anyone know about wristblades from Predator movies?

Thoughts about them?

The only good thing about them is that they can be used while still having your hands free.

Besides that, literally everything about them is just bad.

[The Akasha Colony]

Alright. I have a question. How would motorized truck mounted infantry for strategic maneuvering and with foldable lightweight bicycles for tactical movement or even strategic if the terrian is very rough work? I have read a few articles about advantages of equipping light infantry with lightweight foldable Mountian bikes. Both paratroopers and light truck infantry.

Behold the bicycle infantry

http://www.combatreform.org/atb.htm

Here is where I got most of my facts and ideas. The writer has made a very good argument for bicycles to be used in coexistence with light vehicals and even tanks. Though he does talk about paratroopers most of the time he does mention ground forces several times.

My plan is to form Regiments of Motor Cyclists (need a name). These regiments would comprise of two battalions each with all infantry mounted on light trucks carrying about 8 people each with the bicycles folded up and hanging on the side and in storage racks. Every Battalion will have a Heavy weapons company equipped with 80mm mortars (possible mounted on a ATV or maybe just carried around) and an anti tank section with RPG 29s. (Possible mounted on atvs or carried on bicycle) the the remaining 4 companies would be regular rifle companies. (Should I have a logistic section in each battalion or wait until regiment)

Then at the regimental level possible 120mm mortars mounted on Polaris Rangers would be used for artillery (us military are experimenting with this system of 120mm mortar, also possible keep a heavy anti tank section at regimental level?) Then at regiment a logistics company would be attached.

The idea of this setup is for light infantry to be able to move strategically in trucks then dismount and ride bicycles supported by ATVs/Rangers for weapons carriers across rough terrian or even regular terrian to gain tactical mobility over so called foot sluggers or even dismounted infantry. (Though I do not plan to use them against mech infantry unless supported by attached tank units)

So tell me my infantry experts. What do you think is this a feasible unit with genuine advantages or just junk. (Ps. The largest combined unit would be Brigades with about 5 of these motor cyclist regiments combined with maybe a tank battalion)

Any suggestions to make it better if it's good would be open.

It's Sparky time again, I guess.

99% of the places a bike can go, a truck can go too. That's why off road trucks exist. And a truck is superior in every way to a bicycle in those areas, which leaves the rider hideously vulnerable to enemy fire and likely more prone to self-injury in rough terrain. And there is no secret sauce to bikes that makes them superior in rough terrain to other vehicles. I do not imagine that they would be any better than a modern tactical truck, except maybe in their ability to fit through narrow areas. A tactical truck has the benefit of a stable four-wheel platform, a better suspension than a bike could ever have, and of course a powerful engine putting out way more torque than an infantryman could manage.

The remaining places a truck can't go can be covered via a simple combination of foot infantry and airmobile infantry and does not justify the creation of bicycle units on their own.

As Crookfur said, there's no reason for an intermediate mode of transportation. Bicycles are a poor form of "tactical" mobility compared to both trucks and simple foot marches. They are slower than trucks, provide no protection to the rider, and fatigue the rider as if they were walking on foot especially if the bike is being used off road. And I can only imagine how uncomfortable riding a bike would be while wearing full kit including the increasingly-common groin protectors.

Meanwhile, their total lack of protection means that they cannot be used in the presence of enemy fire as they can neither protect their occupants (like a truck) nor do they allow infantry to seek cover (as an infantryman on foot would be able to do). Unless you use tandem bikes (and this would be really kek), it's also not possible to operate a weapon while riding a bike (again unlike either riding in a truck or assaulting on foot). These are both important aspects of "tactical mobility" and bikes are rather deficient in this area.

Which ultimately means you have to dismount the trucks to mount the bikes, then dismount the bikes to launch the final assault. Which in turn begs the question, why not just drive the trucks up to the dismount point and discard the bikes entirely?

Say, does anyone know about wristblades from Predator movies?

Thoughts about them?

Another movie trope, which is fine because obviously the Predator series wasn't exactly pushing hard on "realism."

The problem with wrist-mounted weapons that is generally overlooked on screen and in games is that such a mounting mechanism basically provides no firm leverage. There is no way to prevent the mount from simply spinning or twisting when placed under load (such as when stabbing or slashing someone) without tightening the straps or mounting mechanism so much it begins to impede circulation in the arm. The wrist mount will always have some flex to it and this will weaken any attacks with it, versus just carrying the weapon in hand.