Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]

[Purpelia]

WWII autocannons that weren't the mollins gun tended to trade muzzle velocity for projectile weight, so as the caliber gets larger the comparative case volume gets smaller.

that being said it's entirely plausible to build an aircraft wing capable of mounting such a weapon, but at the cost of dramatically higher airframe wight with a consequent loss in maneuverability

What if you instead mount it inside the nose of the plane? To make room you could do what they did with the Bell's Cobras and instal the engine in the center fuselage behind the pilot.

That's what I am doing for my ground attacker of the period. 40mm something-nasty in the nose and than a pair of 20mm's in the wings. But for my fighter I was contemplating a setup with 1x20mm in the nose (BF-109 style), 2x20mm in the wing roots and 2x7.5mm through the prop. And I am mainly probing if I'd have to use a different 20mm for the wings than I have to for the motorcannon because I know that the engine mount can be as far up as 30mm no problem but I am not a huge fan of having two different trajectory weapons in the same caliber.

[Fordorsia]

What if you instead mount it inside the nose of the plane? To make room you could do what they did with the Bell's Cobras and instal the engine in the center fuselage behind the pilot.

That's what I am doing for my ground attacker of the period. 40mm something-nasty in the nose and than a pair of 20mm's in the wings. But for my fighter I was contemplating a setup with 1x20mm in the nose (BF-109 style), 2x20mm in the wing roots and 2x7.5mm through the prop. And I am mainly probing if I'd have to use a different 20mm for the wings than I have to for the motorcannon because I know that the engine mount can be as far up as 30mm no problem but I am not a huge fan of having two different trajectory weapons in the same caliber.

This is getting to be fully air force thread related now.

That said, into WWII your rifle caliber MGs in fighters and attackers ideally should have been replaced by HMGs. No point in keeping 7.5s for anything but defensive mounts.

[Purpelia]

That's what I am doing for my ground attacker of the period. 40mm something-nasty in the nose and than a pair of 20mm's in the wings. But for my fighter I was contemplating a setup with 1x20mm in the nose (BF-109 style), 2x20mm in the wing roots and 2x7.5mm through the prop. And I am mainly probing if I'd have to use a different 20mm for the wings than I have to for the motorcannon because I know that the engine mount can be as far up as 30mm no problem but I am not a huge fan of having two different trajectory weapons in the same caliber.

This is getting to be fully air force thread related now.

That said, into WWII your rifle caliber MGs in fighters and attackers ideally should have been replaced by HMGs. No point in keeping 7.5s for anything but defensive mounts.

I basically don't have a HMG. I have 7.5mm, 20mm and nothing in between. Lore reasons. So basically I wanted something for those early war years until I can start getting away with proper 40's fighters that just have like 5x20mm or 4x20mm + 30mm or something fun like that.

[Fordorsia]

This is getting to be fully air force thread related now.

That said, into WWII your rifle caliber MGs in fighters and attackers ideally should have been replaced by HMGs. No point in keeping 7.5s for anything but defensive mounts.

I basically don't have a HMG. I have 7.5mm, 20mm and nothing in between. Lore reasons. So basically I wanted something for those early war years until I can start getting away with proper 40's fighters that just have like 5x20mm or 4x20mm + 30mm or something fun like that.

RIP HMGs. In that case you'll be wanting 4-6 MGs in the wings and just the 20mm in the nose. Or even more in the wings or in gun pods if you want to be especially buzzsaw.

But again, air force thread for going into detail on this.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

This is getting to be fully air force thread related now.

That said, into WWII your rifle caliber MGs in fighters and attackers ideally should have been replaced by HMGs. No point in keeping 7.5s for anything but defensive mounts.

I basically don't have a HMG. I have 7.5mm, 20mm and nothing in between. Lore reasons. So basically I wanted something for those early war years until I can start getting away with proper 40's fighters that just have like 5x20mm or 4x20mm + 30mm or something fun like that.

So... you have basically no machine guns until they somehow magically spring into existence fully formed in 1920 or equivalent, and then you have no machine guns that can hit back at enemies with M2HB's without waiting while heavily suppressed for your armoured support.
10/10 :purp:

[Fordorsia]

If you stack MGs they will have the range of a HMG.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

If you stack MGs they will have the range of a HMG.

Fourdooristan I can't tell at times if you're really uninformed or a Brit with a fetish in volley sights, or both.

Purp would be believable if he was some Tibetan backwater still faffing around with matchlocks. But... he isn't.

[Fordorsia]

Who needs volley sights when you can use the large impact clouds to adjust your aim

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Who needs volley sights when you can use the large impact clouds to adjust your aim

Just bring a fucking 75 mm field gun. Is that so very fucking bloody hard?

[Gallia-]

I basically don't have a HMG. I have 7.5mm, 20mm and nothing in between. Lore reasons. So basically I wanted something for those early war years until I can start getting away with proper 40's fighters that just have like 5x20mm or 4x20mm + 30mm or something fun like that.

So... you have basically no machine guns until they somehow magically spring into existence fully formed in 1920 or equivalent, and then you have no machine guns that can hit back at enemies with M2HB's without waiting while heavily suppressed for your armoured support.
10/10 urp:

He said he no HMGs.

This is in-line with literally every European power, which was using 8mm or 7.7mm or 7.5mm machine guns and maybe a 20mm cannon in the prop hub.

Only the United States was using the .50 cal.

[Fordorsia]

Who needs volley sights when you can use the large impact clouds to adjust your aim

Just bring a fucking 75 mm field gun. Is that so very fucking bloody hard?

This is standard on frod attack planes, yes

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Just bring a fucking 75 mm field gun. Is that so very fucking bloody hard?

This is standard on frod attack planes, yes

This is the infantry thread Fourdooristan.

[Fordorsia]

Your planes don't act as infantry? What a nub

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Your planes don't act as infantry? What a nub

You do not want to get me started.

[Purpelia]

I basically don't have a HMG. I have 7.5mm, 20mm and nothing in between. Lore reasons. So basically I wanted something for those early war years until I can start getting away with proper 40's fighters that just have like 5x20mm or 4x20mm + 30mm or something fun like that.

So... you have basically no machine guns until they somehow magically spring into existence fully formed in 1920 or equivalent, and then you have no machine guns that can hit back at enemies with M2HB's without waiting while heavily suppressed for your armoured support.
10/10 urp:

Did you miss the part about 7.5 as in 7.5mm machine guns?

So... you have basically no machine guns until they somehow magically spring into existence fully formed in 1920 or equivalent, and then you have no machine guns that can hit back at enemies with M2HB's without waiting while heavily suppressed for your armoured support.
10/10 urp:

He said he no HMGs.

This is in-line with literally every European power, which was using 8mm or 7.7mm or 7.5mm machine guns and maybe a 20mm cannon in the prop hub.

Only the United States was using the .50 cal.

This.

[Gallia-]

Your planes don't act as infantry? What a nub

You do not want to get me started.

bbe id start ur motor~

[Myrist]

quick point of divergence, if you wouldn`t mind that is, most people stick with USMC like squads (12-13 men). For personal reasons, uneven numbers annoy me and don`t make logistical sense in my opinion, I was thinking of going the route of an eight men squad. giving the ability to split into two fire teams of four men each. In WWII squads were broken into assaulting, pinning, and maneuver elements. I am looking at making my military essentially modular while making the basic fire teams as efficient as possible in terms of firepower, mobility, and tactical flexibility. The basic layout would be two automatic riflemen in the squad, four riflemen, and then two grenadiers. The Grenadiers are usually the team leaders. Point of this lay out is so that the squad can bring the max amount of firepower that they can proficiently handle. Underlying idea of mine is that a small well equipped unit can be better led in comparison to a larger squad. This is also reflected in the platoon, the platoon will be 36 strong. This is including the HQ fire team, which consists of the Pl, radiomen, medic, and PltSgt. This may seem like it`s lacking the ability to combat vehicles and enemy armor, this is where the most complications can come in. The infantry arm is split into two services, the mechanized and light. While the eight men squad will still be in use in the light infantry it`ll be slightly different in loadout to reflect their nature of featherweight and rapid combat. Basic infantrymen use a 5.56mm, pushrod powered rifle. Automatic riflemen use a heavy free floated barrel, along the premise that while fully automatic is needed there are times where the fire team still needs to hit targets at 500m as accurately as the standard trooper can hit a 200m. This follows the recent adoption of the IAR 27 in the USMC, though this is being contemplated for general adoption instead of SAW/DMR use. I apologize for the rambling, i`ve been off and on active in many different nations through the year and on this fourm.

[The Akasha Colony]

quick point of divergence, if you wouldn`t mind that is, most people stick with USMC like squads (12-13 men). For personal reasons, uneven numbers annoy me and don`t make logistical sense in my opinion, I was thinking of going the route of an eight men squad. giving the ability to split into two fire teams of four men each. In WWII squads were broken into assaulting, pinning, and maneuver elements. I am looking at making my military essentially modular while making the basic fire teams as efficient as possible in terms of firepower, mobility, and tactical flexibility. The basic layout would be two automatic riflemen in the squad, four riflemen, and then two grenadiers. The Grenadiers are usually the team leaders. Point of this lay out is so that the squad can bring the max amount of firepower that they can proficiently handle. Underlying idea of mine is that a small well equipped unit can be better led in comparison to a larger squad. This is also reflected in the platoon, the platoon will be 36 strong. This is including the HQ fire team, which consists of the Pl, radiomen, medic, and PltSgt. This may seem like it`s lacking the ability to combat vehicles and enemy armor, this is where the most complications can come in. The infantry arm is split into two services, the mechanized and light. While the eight men squad will still be in use in the light infantry it`ll be slightly different in loadout to reflect their nature of featherweight and rapid combat. Basic infantrymen use a 5.56mm, pushrod powered rifle. Automatic riflemen use a heavy free floated barrel, along the premise that while fully automatic is needed there are times where the fire team still needs to hit targets at 500m as accurately as the standard trooper can hit a 200m. This follows the recent adoption of the IAR 27 in the USMC, though this is being contemplated for general adoption instead of SAW/DMR use. I apologize for the rambling, i`ve been off and on active in many different nations through the year and on this fourm.

I'm interested as to where you heard the notion that "most people" use 13-man squads. Because IRL, "most" squads are much smaller (the US Army uses 9-man squads and they have a lot more squads than the USMC by simply virtue of being twice the size) and in NS most that I've seen tend to use the same US Army-style layout, which is a two-fireteam squad. So somewhere between 7-10 men or so. Although I know some of the hipsters like larger squads.

USMC squads are 13 men because they're composed of three four-man fireteams and the squad leader. This is also the reason why US Army squads have nine men, they have two four-man fireteams and a squad leader.

Your organization is very similar to a number of existing squad structures, but is perhaps closest to the British because they also have 8-man squads with two fireteams. But in the case of the British, one fireteam has a GPMG while the other has a sharpshooter in place of an extra rifleman (so each has a grenadier, auto rifleman with an LMG, team leader who serves as a rifleman, and either a GMPG or sharpshooter). The US Army's squad is similar but has a separate squad leader (the 9th man) and instead of a GPMG one rifleman is the designated anti-tank gunner who carries the AT4, or Javelin.

Which is why I would say your squads are really quite lightly equipped. The addition of a heavier machine gun as in the British model, an anti-armor gunner as in the US model, or a mortarman as in the French model would help bulk it up because fortified positions are very common and right now your squads are short on range and firepower to engage them. The anti-tank gunner in the US model isn't just for shooting at actual tanks. They spend most of their time shooting at bunkers and improvised infantry fighting positions.

[Theodosiya]

2 fireteams and a weapon team is better than 2 fire team.

[Crookfur]

It's pretty much a British section from the 80s/early 90s although they didn't get GLs until the 2000s instead a couple of riflemen got given CLAW rifle grenades.

Following experience in the early 90s a minimi replaced one of the LSWs and in the 2000s replaced both, although the LSW did stick around as a supplementary weapon.

Afghanistan and Iraq really drove the supplemental weapon thing which is where the GPMGs and DMRs (the DMR replacing L96s that had become spare following the movement of the snipers to L115) appearing in the section came from. The basic standard format section is still 2 rifkes with UGL, 2 LMGs and 4 rifles but each section does have access to a gpmg and a DMR that can replace any of the standard weapons in the section so naturally squadies bomb up as much as possible. There are also a bunch of AT4s, NLAWs and sometimes a javelin available although the javelin tends to stay in the battalion AT platoon.

US army squads do something similar with thier javelins and m240s which ride in the wagon until needed.

[Laywenrania]

So... you have basically no machine guns until they somehow magically spring into existence fully formed in 1920 or equivalent, and then you have no machine guns that can hit back at enemies with M2HB's without waiting while heavily suppressed for your armoured support.
10/10 urp:

He said he no HMGs.

This is in-line with literally every European power, which was using 8mm or 7.7mm or 7.5mm machine guns and maybe a 20mm cannon in the prop hub.

Only the United States was using the .50 cal.

Germany was using the 13mm p. e. in the Bf 109 G, USSR had the 12,7mm in it's Yak and maany other planes. Italian Machi C. 200 and other planes used 12,7 mm guns. Even the brits used in the spitfire E wing 12,7 mm MGs, even with their fetish for maaaany 7,7mm MGs

[Laritaia]

they used teh .50s because their favorite weapon configuration of quad 20s reduced maneuverability too much

when the spitfires got more powerful they dumped the .50 as fast as they could

[Gallia-]

whatever

point is that rifle caliber mgs were pretty common as armament of fighter planes in the '30s

[Spreewerke]

Do you realize the original post you responded to was about infrared camouflage?

Did you just assume my reading comprehension?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

quick point of divergence, if you wouldn`t mind that is, most people stick with USMC like squads (12-13 men). For personal reasons, uneven numbers annoy me and don`t make logistical sense in my opinion, I was thinking of going the route of an eight men squad. giving the ability to split into two fire teams of four men each. In WWII squads were broken into assaulting, pinning, and maneuver elements. I am looking at making my military essentially modular while making the basic fire teams as efficient as possible in terms of firepower, mobility, and tactical flexibility. The basic layout would be two automatic riflemen in the squad, four riflemen, and then two grenadiers. The Grenadiers are usually the team leaders. Point of this lay out is so that the squad can bring the max amount of firepower that they can proficiently handle. Underlying idea of mine is that a small well equipped unit can be better led in comparison to a larger squad. This is also reflected in the platoon, the platoon will be 36 strong. This is including the HQ fire team, which consists of the Pl, radiomen, medic, and PltSgt. This may seem like it`s lacking the ability to combat vehicles and enemy armor, this is where the most complications can come in. The infantry arm is split into two services, the mechanized and light. While the eight men squad will still be in use in the light infantry it`ll be slightly different in loadout to reflect their nature of featherweight and rapid combat. Basic infantrymen use a 5.56mm, pushrod powered rifle. Automatic riflemen use a heavy free floated barrel, along the premise that while fully automatic is needed there are times where the fire team still needs to hit targets at 500m as accurately as the standard trooper can hit a 200m. This follows the recent adoption of the IAR 27 in the USMC, though this is being contemplated for general adoption instead of SAW/DMR use. I apologize for the rambling, i`ve been off and on active in many different nations through the year and on this fourm.

literally every man who isn't a rocket man or grenadier should be a machine gunner

and your machine gunners should have disposable rockets

13 man squads forever