Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]

[Laritaia]

Is the Carl-Gustaf M4 more suited for section/squad or platoon level deployment? As I have been reading about how the infantry love their M3s however they don't mention what level they are at.

they are useful at either level, depending on your doctrine

[Gallia-]

Is the Carl-Gustaf M4 more suited for section/squad or platoon level deployment? As I have been reading about how the infantry love their M3s however they don't mention what level they are at.

it doesnt matter which

m4 is a lighter/cut down m3

galla uses it like an rpg-7d, i.e. a "paratrooper" model of the real thing

[Dostanuot Loj]

AFAIK most of them were unreliable or prohibitively expensive compared to the bolt action weapons which were nearly at the apex of their design before self-loading rifles would come into their own in the next few decades. Were LMGs still able to be taken full advantage of as they were in the next war?

Part of the reason for the Chauchat was to make automatic rifles as plentiful as baguettes. More plentiful than baguettes actually.

If France had not, you know, been struggling for its national survival, 1919 could have seen French infantry carrying RSCs and Chauchats forever.
Maybe if they had actually been willing to let the Americans build them stuff. Or the Americans had been more willing to do it for them?

[Puzikas]

More willing to let the Americans build them stuff.

The US built guns for approximately everyone at some point, but France preferred to get them from themselves and Spain.
Idk why they didn't. Nationalisms, fear of the U-Boats, worries the US would cut off their production if/when they entered the war, unwillingness to let America get joocy small arms technology, fear of (((private Enterprise))) vs (((state Enterprise))), who_knows

The result was Mousqueton Berthier which was the coolest tbh

E; I mean it's continued use

[Rhodesialund]

More willing to let the Americans build them stuff.

The US built guns for approximately everyone at some point

That's practically an understatement on tier with calling the big bang a firecracker.

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

What was the most effective LMG by 1917-1918?

Also, what was the average section armed with at that point? I'm guessing most had whatever bolt action was most popular, the officer had a handgun, and then the LMG team had the LMG.

[NeuPolska]

Probably had SMGs if they were stormtroopers as well

[Gallia-]

More willing to let the Americans build them stuff.

The US built guns for approximately everyone at some point

That's practically an understatement on tier with calling the big bang a firecracker.

It's actually an overstatement.

Because the USSR and PRC have both made more guns than the USA.

[Rhodesialund]

That's practically an understatement on tier with calling the big bang a firecracker.

It's actually an overstatement.

Because the USSR and PRC have both made more guns than the USA.

[Gallia-]

It's actually an overstatement.

Because the USSR and PRC have both made more guns than the USA.

You don't believe other basic facts as well, so I'm not really surprised.

[Puzikas]

Of a single type yeah
Or in WWI do you mean? I think the US produced about 3-4 million rifles under contract, mostly Mosins, M1917/P14s, and that was definitely lower end production numbers
Or state Arsenal's? Rock Island and Springfield produced rifles at levels that cumulatively come nowhere near what Tula or Hanjang produced.

That's practically an understatement on tier with calling the big bang a firecracker.

That's hyperbolic on a similar level.

What was the most effective LMG by 1917-1918?

Also, what was the average section armed with at that point? I'm guessing most had whatever bolt action was most popular, the officer had a handgun, and then the LMG team had the LMG.

Lewis gun realistically was the best at providing a base of fire and manuver that existed in significant numbers
The MG15nA was probably the closest to a GPMG at the time
The Chauchat was decent
The 1918 was the most sophisticated
The Madsen was good
Really it's hard to say anything bad about any of them because most of them were progenitors of entire schools of Infantry tactics and served for decades after.

It varied nation to nation.
Every section had the sections number of rifles. The actual changes came at platoon level, where there were assault elements, fire elements, and supressive elements. The supressive had a machine gun, and the assault had grenades, maybe a shotgun or SMG.
And peestols

[Gallia-]

I just meant in general. Not specific time periods or guns.

Peak US production of rifles is probably lower than peak Soviet production, let alone peak Chinese, and it only tapers off with the rest of industrial output. USSR really punched above its weight for its size and whatnot in terms of technics produced vice any other country. The spergiest civilization ever to sperglord.

[Puzikas]

Eh, the US probably has since 1980 produced more firearms of all kinds than anyone else
The USSR (Russia only-Not Poland, Hungary, Romania, et al) produced about ~75,000,000 small arms 1924-1992.

From the same period the US probably produced 150,000,000 firearms, but about 70%-80 of those were for the civilian market-and most of that was driven by civilian interest, civilian need, and civilian purchase.
Right now there's probably 1.1 guns in the US per every american-the US government controls probably 10-12m of those

[Gallia-]

With the caveat that I'm referring to state use and international sales, not domestic civilian consumption.

[Puzikas]

I had assumed that from the start but I don't think I worded it right.

Yeah the USSR is without a doubt the #1 producer and exporter of small arms for state or milita use, by a huge margin over the next closest which is probably China.
The US genuinely did not produce a lot of small arms for sale to other states. They produced a lot for themselves and then gsve arms to them from old stock.

Like the USSR and WarPact probably produced 100-115m (that's kind of a spread-I don't know if Hungarian, Czech and West German numbers are as high as I remember them being) total small arms, and 99% of those were for use by government entities or sale to allies.
And that doesn't include Yugoslavia who produced, relative to their size and industrial capability, a large amount not only for themselves but for a bunch of African and middle eastern states.

[Rhodesialund]

You don't believe other basic facts as well, so I'm not really surprised.

Gayla, see the below quote as proof of my disbelief in you.

Eh, the US probably has since 1980 produced more firearms of all kinds than anyone else
The USSR (Russia only-Not Poland, Hungary, Romania, et al) produced about ~75,000,000 small arms 1924-1992.

From the same period the US probably produced 150,000,000 firearms, but about 70%-80 of those were for the civilian market-and most of that was driven by civilian interest, civilian need, and civilian purchase.
Right now there's probably 1.1 guns in the US per every american-the US government controls probably 10-12m of those

[Puzikas]

Yeah but Galla is right, as an entity the US government has not produced that many small arms.
Because it's a capitalist society who's entire perogative is not an ideological struggle against an instructed other it has never had the need to produce a huge arsenal of weapons for sale to friendly states nor for its own use. Free from real threats from continental enemies for over 100 years it has never developed the need by the time explosions in arms production took off to produce huge amounts, and it's initial attempts at producing large amounts of a modern rifle proved to be disasterous. The private industry outshone American government production in virtually every way, and as Galla references it, the government is all that matters here.

E: the US government also uses it's private industry to produce its own small arms as it is now. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this, as Americans recognize small arms ownership as a right, and these resources are ready at all times to produce and meet demands for government needs, or can quickly be brought to meet the aforementioned demands. It also keeps the US up front in small arms development because there's an internal conflict to create the best new weapon or bit of gear for the civilian market, which pushes small arms development, which keeps the US right at the forefront. Optics on Infantry rifles were basically the result of US arms makers recognizing the advantage thereof and being able to produce them in large amounts because of civilian need for them.

[Alimeria-]

Somewhat more practical version of my service revolver

Edit: Chambered in 11.5x45mm, ensures death of Kraut, Confederato, and Draugr alike

[Rhodesialund]

Yeah but Galla is right, as an entity the US government has not produced that many small arms.
Because it's a capitalist society who's entire perogative is not an ideological struggle against an instructed other it has never had the need to produce a huge arsenal of weapons for sale to friendly states nor for its own use. Free from real threats from continental enemies for over 100 years it has never developed the need by the time explosions in arms production took off to produce huge amounts, and it's initial attempts at producing large amounts of a modern rifle proved to be disasterous. The private industry outshone American government production in virtually every way, and as Galla references it, the government is all that matters here.

Obviously yeah the US Gov hasn't made that much for the reasons you state. However the US as a whole produced more firearms than the USSR, and or China depending upon if they actually do release the stats for that. Most likely we will never find out until China collapses and their armories open up.

[Rhodesialund]

(Image) Somewhat more practical version of my service revolver

That looks, uncomfortably large.

[Alimeria-]

(Image) Somewhat more practical version of my service revolver

That looks, uncomfortably large.

...for you

[Khornatenreich]

That looks, uncomfortably large.

...for you

Tell em' the caliber.........

[Gallia-]

Using civilian consumption is a bit like saying "the USA makes people's trucks", and then going "well South Korea makes all the cars that it buys".

USA has never seriously leveraged its private industry for war production outside of WW2. The USSR and PRC leveraged their industries for war production for 50 years.

[Rhodesialund]

...for you

Tell em' the caliber.........

That's a lot of metal for a service gun!

[Khornatenreich]

Using civilian consumption is a bit like saying "the USA makes people's trucks", and then going "well South Korea makes all the cars that it buys".

USA has never seriously leveraged its private industry for war production outside of WW2. The USSR and PRC leveraged their industries for war production for 50 years.

If we de-mothballed the rustbelt for TotalenkriegTM "Freedomberg Edition", you'd catch a really tall dude vigorously jerking it to a steel mill. That level of industrial might is practically sexual.