Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]

[Khornatenreich]

-

No, there's a simple answer; but it's pretty safe to say you aren't the one to give it. And with thread devouring babble like this, I'm feeling a bit ashamed of myself that I fell for the "Purpelian Conversational Nuance" bait this time around.

[Purpelia]

-

No, there's a simple answer; but it's pretty safe to say you aren't the one to give it. And with thread devouring babble like this, I'm feeling a bit ashamed of myself that I fell for the "Purpelian Conversational Nuance" bait this time around.

Good luck finding what you want than. Maybe some other truth is out there that fits your desires better.

[Puzikas]

Purp, you do understand why some units issue out spare barrels for machine guns, right? It's rare that they ever have to use them

Wait, what?

That's just patently untrue. Spare barrels aren't for when you shoot out your Machine Guns bore, it's for when your barrel is too hot and is reciculating too much heat into the system, and further use risks cook offs or might risk a KB of the barrel. You take it out and use another barrel, then when that ones too hot you put the old one or a new one back in.

They're used like all the time. All. The. Time.

[Khornatenreich]

Purp, you do understand why some units issue out spare barrels for machine guns, right? It's rare that they ever have to use them

Wait, what?

That's just patently untrue. Spare barrels aren't for when you shoot out your Machine Guns bore, it's for when your barrel is too hot and is reciculating too much heat into the system, and further use risks cook offs or might risk a KB of the barrel. You take it out and use another barrel, then when that ones too hot you put the old one or a new one back in.

They're used like all the time. All. The. Time.

Yes, they are used all the time (and no this isn't backpedaling) but in this circumstance, Purp is referring to them being burned through, "dead" & useless items post use my man.

[Mefpan]

Food for thought though Purp, in regard to why magazine capacity matters in this theoretical drawing-board-to-deployment debacle; it might be useful to know how many magazines worth of ammunition can be put down the same barrel/set-of-rails (rail-module to be precise) in a practical engagement's assumed period of time. Same rules that are applied to material or component survival analysis tests if viewed from a somewhat analytical perspective.

Either way, if your front line weapon has such a short barrel life that you have to even contemplate completely dumping a barrel after one or several engagements it's probably not really good. And things like 20 vs 30 round magazines (made up numbers just to serve as an example) is not really going to change that.

Front line anti materiel weapon. I'm pretty damn sure it's going to be well worth the expense relative to an enemy armored vehicle's price tag. Especially when you consider the drastically reduced delivery times compared to anti tank missiles, many of which also have a lot of useless material left behind.

Purp, you do understand why some units issue out spare barrels for machine guns, right? It's rare that they ever have to use them, but Joe, Heinrich, Ivan, Chang & co (accounting for modern international infantry nicknames akin to "joe" here) aren't always the sharpest tools in the shed. If you ever feel like toning down your pedantry for just a tiny little bit and talk with any veterans, they typically cite this as a reason for issuing spares. It's unlikely the unit in question will actually burn through the initially issued barrel in question, but it's nice to have a fallback in the event of causality angrily shitting the bed.

That is what I was talking about initially when I asked you how long you think the barrel life was going to be.

That question was explicitly meant to determine if this thing is going to have a relatively long total barrel life but with the occasional temporary swap due to overheating or if it was something that is going to have a comparatively short barrel life with permanent swaps ever so often. You asked how the barrels for these things should be handled and the answer explicitly depends on that.

#1. means you only ever need one spare carried by an assistant gunner.
#2. means you have to stockpile and distribute spares and must therefore organize a more robust supply chain.

The barrels might very well last quite a decent amount of time for what they have to go through (or rather, for what they have go through them), but my experience as a machinery repairman tells me it's always comforting for peopleto have a spare part or two on hand in case some manufacturing error or fault in the material structure itself causes the part in question to fuck itself up about ten seconds into operation. Not really sure why it'd be much different for a soldier and his tool of trade.

I really don't fucking know why the mere act of issuing a unit with a couple more spare barrels would be such an insurmountable task for a modern military machine that hasn't atrophied its budget for the sake of less useful bleeding heart expenditures. We've had militaries having to juggle over a dozen different types of tank spare parts before, we've had a wild mix of infantry equipment go to the frontline and somehow everything still worked well enough, and that's before I begin talks of repurposed enemy equipment captured in battle, which have their very own peculiar logistical demands if you don't want to ditch them at the first opportunity.

[Puzikas]

Wait, what?

That's just patently untrue. Spare barrels aren't for when you shoot out your Machine Guns bore, it's for when your barrel is too hot and is reciculating too much heat into the system, and further use risks cook offs or might risk a KB of the barrel. You take it out and use another barrel, then when that ones too hot you put the old one or a new one back in.

They're used like all the time. All. The. Time.

Yes, they are (and no this isn't backpedaling) but in this circumstance, Purp is referring to them being burned through, "dead" & useless items post use my man.

>Attempting to apply logic to purp posting
A lost battle my dude.

[Khornatenreich]

Yes, they are (and no this isn't backpedaling) but in this circumstance, Purp is referring to them being burned through, "dead" & useless items post use my man.

>Attempting to apply logic to purp posting
A lost battle my dude.

Shit, why didn't I block him again? I don't rightly recall the reason.

[Purpelia]

Wait, what?

That's just patently untrue. Spare barrels aren't for when you shoot out your Machine Guns bore, it's for when your barrel is too hot and is reciculating too much heat into the system, and further use risks cook offs or might risk a KB of the barrel. You take it out and use another barrel, then when that ones too hot you put the old one or a new one back in.

They're used like all the time. All. The. Time.

Exactly. That is the distinction I was trying to figure out with this thing.

Yes, they are (and no this isn't backpedaling) but in this circumstance, Purp is referring to them being burned through, "dead" & useless items post use my man.

Listen. You are designing a fantasy railgun. There is no reality here to go on because we do not know the properties of it. And yet you asked how these spare barrels should be handled. If they should be used as spare MG barrels were or treated as spare parts in the supply chain.

Therefore my first task when answering you was to establish what purpose this treatment was for. Were they going to be something you rapidly wear out and destroy or were they going to be something you swap out on a regular basis BUT do not need to resupply for. As in, what kind of fantasy railgun you want this to be.

And than you started talking about magazine size and arguing how magazine size matters. It does not. 10 round magazines vs 30 round magazines vs 300 round magazines only changes how many times you reload and not how many rounds you fire through the thing total. And it does not change the mechanical effects of any single round on the barrel to begin with.

[Khornatenreich]

Now listen here fella, we're on page 425 of a thread on a website that tries to stick with a 500 page limit after a point. So let me square up some points with you here to end this (whatever the hell it is).

The only thing "fantasy" here about the design concept is the power supply itself and extremely minor elements of the wiring's insulation, and that's left unspecified for the sake of vaguery within a narrative so some progress can be achieved with something on my long list of backburnered material that needs fleshing out.

[Sevvania]

No, there's a simple answer

Three.

[Khornatenreich]

No, there's a simple answer

Three.

Three spare barrels to stow in the units T809-Schützenpanzerwagen, in fact, three per issued unit. How very practical.


You cheeky devil

[Celitannia]

Back to more...conventional topics...

Which is better for use in a manoeuvre support team: Lightweight FN MAG or the FN Minimi 7.62?

I'm edging towards the former.

[Khornatenreich]

It's an FN MAG dude, go for it.

[Rhodesialund]

Back to more...conventional topics...

Which is better for use in a manoeuvre support team: Lightweight FN MAG or the FN Minimi 7.62?

I'm edging towards the former.

FN Minimi 7.62 because it's practically a Mk 48, and I've heard very favorable reviews of these over the FN MAG/M240.

[Laywenrania]

Back to more...conventional topics...

Which is better for use in a manoeuvre support team: Lightweight FN MAG or the FN Minimi 7.62?

I'm edging towards the former.

PKP

[Celitannia]

Back to more...conventional topics...

Which is better for use in a manoeuvre support team: Lightweight FN MAG or the FN Minimi 7.62?

I'm edging towards the former.

FN Minimi 7.62 because it's practically a Mk 48, and I've heard very favorable reviews of these over the FN MAG/M240.

The FN Minimi 7.62 has a significant weight advantage, but I know that the British Army despite ordering over two hundred of these is still looking for a lightweight FN MAG. Similarly the US has developed the M240L over more Mk 48s.

What advantages does the FN MAG have?

[Yes Im Biop]

Alright brochachos, I've got a question for a semi-practical unit loadout of sorts. Primarily, how many spare barrels for a Linear-Motorbüchse equipped Anti-Panzertruppe squad? If any of you have an idea on how to approach this, please, feel free to give it a whirl. My big dilemma is whether or not to treat it like spare MG barrels for the weapon-operator's squad itself, or if I should treat it like PAK team treated spare parts for their guns. It's a platoon asset though, might as well get that out of the way.

And yes, the XV.110 uses a 20mm sabot with a 15mm (or 13mm, haven't really decided on which yet) projectile.

And just to get this out of the way, I was the guy who originally commissioned the whole project set for this set of dieselpunk Linear Motor Rifles from RB.

(Image)

I feel like this is a direct threat to me, But i also like the design. Big guns burn barrels, but if this is more AMR than Auto cannon i wouldn't worry about it unless you practice seige warfare on the regular

[Laritaia]

but I know that the British Army despite ordering over two hundred of these is still looking for a lightweight FN MAG.

Because the 7.62mm Minimis were a UOR item and as such are not supported beyond operations in Afghanistan

[Celitannia]

but I know that the British Army despite ordering over two hundred of these is still looking for a lightweight FN MAG.

Because the 7.62mm Minimis were a UOR item and as such are not supported beyond operations in Afghanistan

True. Though I imagine they would have been palmed off to UKSF rather than scrapped entirely.

Anyway, the budget being what it is these days, I suspect that the preference for the FN MAG is due to a lightweight version being posited as an upgrade to existing L7A2s, which would be cheaper than buying 7.62 Minimis new.

[Taihei Tengoku]

FN Minimi 7.62 because it's practically a Mk 48, and I've heard very favorable reviews of these over the FN MAG/M240.

The FN Minimi 7.62 has a significant weight advantage, but I know that the British Army despite ordering over two hundred of these is still looking for a lightweight FN MAG. Similarly the US has developed the M240L over more Mk 48s.

What advantages does the FN MAG have?

FN MAG has a receiver lifespan twice that of Mk48, which "ages" very quickly because the Minimi was never meant to fire the 7.62. Certain parts on the Mk 48 will fail even faster.

[Fordorsia]

Back to more...conventional topics...

Which is better for use in a manoeuvre support team: Lightweight FN MAG or the FN Minimi 7.62?

I'm edging towards the former.

MG 42

[Celitannia]

The FN Minimi 7.62 has a significant weight advantage, but I know that the British Army despite ordering over two hundred of these is still looking for a lightweight FN MAG. Similarly the US has developed the M240L over more Mk 48s.

What advantages does the FN MAG have?

FN MAG has a receiver lifespan twice that of Mk48, which "ages" very quickly because the Minimi was never meant to fire the 7.62. Certain parts on the Mk 48 will fail even faster.

Interesting, though unexpected, as Minimi was initially meant to employ 7.62 mm NATO.

Though as a lighter weapon it makes sense that there would be certain tradeoffs.

[Laritaia]

True. Though I imagine they would have been palmed off to UKSF rather than scrapped entirely.

that's basically the same thing

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Back to more...conventional topics...

Which is better for use in a manoeuvre support team: Lightweight FN MAG or the FN Minimi 7.62?

I'm edging towards the former.

What is a "lightweight" MAG? How much does it weigh?

In any case I'm guessing you're not getting it under the minimi's weight so use the minimi.

[Purpelia]

I recently saw an episode of InRange where they used some sort of really nifty small 60 round drum mag for the AR-15. After looking the thing up it turns out that the diameter is only 104mm. And that is small enough to be generally easy to work with even with a bullpup. So I was thinking of issuing that as the default magazine for all my future 5.5x42mm rifles.

Opinion?