Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Isn't a helicopter with a pusher propeller in the back superior to a tiltrotor ?

edit: I'm going fully off sparkyTM Knowledge

if your objective is pure speed then no

OK. But given you already have traditional helicopters will R&D to come up with such a helicopter not be easier/cheaper and will the resulting helicopter not be cheaper/simpler/more reliable than a tiltrotor whilst still offering a significant improvement in speed over the traditional heli?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

re-poast

what problems could I encounter with using differing OAL cartridges but w/same case length in a semi-automatic firearm? e.g. different length shotgun shells, longer spitzer bullets vs shorter roundnosed bullets in a handgun cartridge etc.

also, given that my military uses 7.62x25mm as a handgun/PDW/SMG round and I like to have commonality with my police forces, would it make sense to have the same guns but with a different barrel that would fire what would essentially be a tapered 9x25mm Mauser (essentially a 7.62 Tok without bottlenecking) ? I think that should give less overpenetration against unarmored targets, better effects with JHP loads, and possibly better performance for subsonic (silenced) applications?

edit: i reckon i could end up with something like FBI's reduced recoil 10mm Auto load? dimensions would be similar i think except 9mm vs 10mm.

edit2: also, purp, can i use this https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70757389/Bullet/7.5x25%20Felix%20MSP%202nd%20Improved%20Edition%20_reprint.swf pls?

also, anyone heard of these? http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/03/28/md-arms-double-stack-saiga-magazine-patent/

edit: any pros and cons to revolvers with interchangeable barrels? (video w/ barrel change)

i know this never caught on but from what i've seen on the internet these particular ones seem to be pretty reliable and accurate.

edit2: and any issue with additionally having an interchangeable cylinder as well to switch between cartridges?

here you can see how the frame has a small central "tang"/grip part potentially allowing for different sub-compact/carry/full-size grips on the same frame

[Purpelia]

And it's random question time. Today with seriousness.

This is a three part question with two assumptions and a concluding query.
1. We know that for the most part full auto battle rifles firing full powered cartridges are not a good idea. Yes, you can control them if you train a lot and use a proper stance and everything. But it's no SMG. And it sure hell can't replace the full power firepower of an SMG.

2. We know that, when they adopted battle rifles back in the 50's, a lot of western powers recognized this. Thus they made their FAL's and the like semi-auto only. Not all of them did, but many did.

From 1 and 2 we can conclude that, in theory at least, the average 50's squad with FAL's actually has less firepower than the average 40's squad (assuming that they had semi autos in the 40's like the americans did) because they've gotten rid of their SMG's but did not gain anything to really replace them.

So my question is thus.

Assuming Purpelia was to adopt a semi-auto only full powered battle rifle in the 50's as I am going to do. Would it make sense historically, tactically and practically for me to also issue out a number of SMG's per squad like I'd have done in the 40's? If no, why not?

Also, why didn't nations do this?

[Fordorsia]

From 1 and 2 we can conclude that, in theory at least, the average 50's squad with FAL's actually has less firepower than the average 40's squad (assuming that they had semi autos in the 40's like the americans did) because they've gotten rid of their SMG's but did not gain anything to really replace them.

No one got rid of their SMGs in the 50s. What even is the Sterling for example.

What largely replaced them were the very rifles you're talking about, which were semi auto, potentially full auto, and had the same magazine capacity as them. On top of that they still had LMGs and GPMGs, so the idea that a squad from a decade earlier had more firepower just because they were more likely to have a couple SMGs is very silly. A rifle squad from 1945 with bolt actions or the Garand would likely get wrecked by one from 1955 with the FAL.

[Purpelia]

No one got rid of their SMGs in the 50s. What even is the Sterling for example.

What largely replaced them were the very rifles you're talking about, which were semi auto, potentially full auto, and had the same magazine capacity as them. On top of that they still had LMGs and GPMGs, so the idea that a squad from a decade earlier had more firepower just because they were more likely to have a couple SMGs is very silly. A rifle squad from 1945 with bolt actions or the Garand would likely get wrecked by one from 1955 with the FAL.

A rifle squad from 45 with garands and SMG's had more close range automatic firepower (which is all that counts) than a squad from 55 with M14's that were "full auto" but not really. Of course, they all were silly outmatched by the average Soviet squad with AK's. But that's a different story.

[Fordorsia]

A rifle squad from 45 with garands and SMG's had more close range automatic firepower (which is all that counts) than a squad from 55 with M14's that were "full auto" but not really.

Oh wow a couple SMGs at close range, what incredible firepower. Oh wait the squad from the 50s has SMGs too and rifles with just as much ammo as them. RIP your shitty wartime squad.

Of course, they all were silly outmatched by the average Soviet squad with AK's. But that's a different story

iirc Russian squads still had a number of SKSs, so depending on the average number in a squad they'd have no more firepower than western counterparts.

[Puzikas]

And it's random question time. Today with seriousness.

This is a three part question with two assumptions and a concluding query.
1. We know that for the most part full auto battle rifles firing full powered cartridges are not a good idea. Yes, you can control them if you train a lot and use a proper stance and everything. But it's no SMG. And it sure hell can't replace the full power firepower of an SMG.

Except it totally can but OK

From 1 and 2 we can conclude that, in theory at least, the average 50's squad with FAL's actually has less firepower than the average 40's squad (assuming that they had semi autos in the 40's like the americans did)

"If we assume they did because they did, they did"

No, all we can assume is how wrong you are.

SMGs were usually one or two per quad at best. The section had that and an automatic rifle, say a BREN or a BAR, and then they all have era correct self loading rifles of any flavor in a 10 man squad
They can produce a fire rate of about 306-316 rounds/minute (32 per rifleman, and that's a generous estimate, and 50-60 for the machine rifle) at 200m, or about 356-366 at 100m, assuming one SMG.

Then take ten men and arm all but one with an FAL. Give one guy an era correct MG again. With that, nine men can produce 360 rounds/minute at 40 rounds/minute/man, plus the machine guns 50-60, for 410-420 rounds per minute. Of theyre using a proper GPMG or LMG, that number goes up to 460, and they can employ that fire within all of their effective engagement envelope, unlike a SMG, which is incapable of firing at point targets beyond, generally, 100m.

Also, why didn't nations do this?

They did

iirc Russian squads still had a number of SKSs, so depending on the average number in a squad they'd have no more firepower than western counterparts.

Russia had put the AK into mass use with basically every Frontline unit in the European theater by 1957
The SKS was the primary service arm of the Soviet Union on paper until 1949 and the primary weapon until Bout 1952, but they kept the AK hidden.

[Fordorsia]

All this is irrelevant when my infantry has been using box fed Luger trifles since WWI

[Purpelia]

Except it totally can but OK

Really? I was under the impression that firing full powered battle rifles on full auto was difficult to do and master. Which would explain why a lot of the WW2 era equivalents were LMG's that were heavy and had bipods and stuf. Like, that's what literally everything I have ever seen on the internet has told me. And it's the best I can do for finding information.

So now I am confused. Just how easy or difficult is it to produce controlled automatic fire from something like an M14 or FAL?

"If we assume they did because they did, they did"

No, all we can assume is how wrong you are.

SMGs were usually one or two per quad at best. The section had that and an automatic rifle, say a BREN or a BAR, and then they all have era correct self loading rifles of any flavor in a 10 man squad
They can produce a fire rate of about 306-316 rounds/minute (32 per rifleman, and that's a generous estimate, and 50-60 for the machine rifle) at 200m, or about 356-366 at 100m, assuming one SMG.

Then take ten men and arm all but one with an FAL. Give one guy an era correct MG again. With that, nine men can produce 360 rounds/minute at 40 rounds/minute/man, plus the machine guns 50-60, for 410-420 rounds per minute. Of theyre using a proper GPMG or LMG, that number goes up to 460, and they can employ that fire within all of their effective engagement envelope, unlike a SMG, which is incapable of firing at point targets beyond, generally, 100m.

So basically their machineguns just got really better? Again, I think this returns to the question about just how controllable these things are. I was lead to believe that the answer is not very. But your numbers only make sense to me if the answer is quite.

*confused*

[Theodosiya]

@ Gramp Puzikas

What's the best way to field air assault division? Assuming that one of the three brigades are "Heavy" (See my post b4)

Also, how would a Marine Air Assault Brigade operate?

[Fordorsia]

Learning to control a battle rifle on full auto is easy. But you don't have to use it full auto, which is why most didn't bother with it. Semi auto is fast to use and perfectly controllable, which is why SMGs in close quarters offer little to no advantage.

[Crookfur]

Yeah a big issue is that SMGs vanishing from the squad/squad didn't really happen. IIRC on paper british infantry platoons still had the same number of SMGs as in ww2 ie one each for everyone above Lance corporal and a few for the AT crews. In practice there tended to be less fielded as the junior officers and SNCOs did all they could to get and keep a SLR due to hating the sterling/ not wanting to stand out/really liking the SLR. IIRC as long as you scored a marksman rating during qualification you got to have a SLR even if your rank/role prescribed differently.

[Laritaia]

if your objective is pure speed then no

OK. But given you already have traditional helicopters will R&D to come up with such a helicopter not be easier/cheaper and will the resulting helicopter not be cheaper/simpler/more reliable than a tiltrotor whilst still offering a significant improvement in speed over the traditional heli?

Compound Helicopters are not necessarily easier then Tilt rotors to make work effectivly.

there are a ton of complex aerodynamic interactions that have to be solved to get a serviceable high speed compound helicopter

[Dostanuot Loj]

So I'm starting to consider a 3x3 section approach for infantry. 10 men total including the SL. With some inherent flexibility, or at least encouraged flexibility to the SL. So the idea is 10 men, three ubgl rifles, two automatic rifles, five regular rifles, and the section has issued both a CARL G and LMG. One rifleman each is trained to operate the Carl G and LMG with the other to act as assistant (ty for the idea Gallia). These two would be in the third fireteam and use whichever weapon the SL says, with the other two fire teams being balanced as 3 men, one with an automatic rifle, one with the ubgl, and one with a regular rifle and an AT4.

How does this sound?

So:

-Section leader
•Grenade Launcher
-Heavy Rifle team
•Carl G
•IAR
•Rifle
-MG team
•MG
•Rifle
•Grenade Launcher
-Rifle team
•IAR
•Grenade launcher
•Rifle
?

I see no issue with it. It's a pretty normal setup.

Нет товарищ

Section Leader (Rifle or UBGL)
Team Bella
- TL (Rifle or UBGL, opposite of SL)
- Gunner A (Rifle, primary for Carl G)
- Gunner B (Rifle, primary for LMG)
Team Edward
- TL (UBGL)
- Autorifleman (Automatic rifle)
- Rifleman (Rifle)
Team Jacob
- TL (UBGL)
- Autorifleman (Automatic rifle)
- Rifleman (Rifle)

Team Bella would operate either the Carl G or LMG as directed by the SL (Who may be directed by PL of course). Or neither if for some reason the SL decided that was better. Of course whoever takes the heavy weapon will likely leave their rifle.

This way people can be lopped off teams, or teams combined with casualties but maintain major weapons.

[Fordorsia]

Speaking of SMGs Ford Mechanized Infantry don't even bother with them. Just rifles, plumbing carbines, support rifles, shotguns and GPMGs. The ultimate goodness.

Anyone else have their 40s-50s mechanized squads?

[Puzikas]

Oh I see, either or and not both.

As long as you have coverage of both weapons through the platoons it should be fine

[Ardavia]

random thought

12-man squad with two IFVs (six dismounts each), one IFV with an autocannon and the other with a low-pressure 100mm gun

Y/N

[Taihei Tengoku]

I toyed with 13 men split between two IFVs but that means five (!) maneuver elements per squad and I'm really not sure how smoothly that's gonna work out

[Fordorsia]

random thought

12-man squad with two IFVs (six dismounts each), one IFV with an autocannon and the other with a low-pressure 100mm gun

Y/N

I don't see why not, as long as the 100mm doesn't take up any passenger space

[Gallia-]

random thought

12-man squad with two IFVs (six dismounts each), one IFV with an autocannon and the other with a low-pressure 100mm gun

Y/N

It could work and is hardly unprecedented. It would mean a two squad platoon, which isn't terrible, but it's not a triangle so it doesn't form a fully closed polygon if you know what I mean. It just means every assault (or every anything) is balls to the wall. If you're super hard like the Army of Excellence (the last people I'm aware of who used a 2 squad platoon) you can make it work.

I toyed with 13 men split between two IFVs but that means five (!) maneuver elements per squad and I'm really not sure how smoothly that's gonna work out

You can always segregate the carriers and the squads TBF.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... index.html

Though this is four maneuver elements I suppose. I guess you could make one of the five subunits a maneuver-by-fire unit with recoilless rifles or SMAWs.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Oh I see, either or and not both.

As long as you have coverage of both weapons through the platoons it should be fine

With three sections per platoon the PL could do 2/1, or all 3 of one as needed. Or of course only rifles for some reason. Platoon HQ would include CO and XO, RATELO, and a 2-man 60mm mortar team.

Two up one back forever.

Edit: Tack on an extra rifleman to each team for S&G, drop to two sections. But I proposed this before.

[Gallia-]

So you know how cuddly EDA-R is a real life boat like Spearhead? I mean the whole "having a substantial draught" thing.

What if you had a Spearhead type landing craft? Like a Big!Zubr?

Or is that what the Navy wants to do with EPF and ESD anyway? I'm trying to think of ways Galla might have a powerful amphibious capability since it is an island country and all that's coming to mind are outsized SES monstrosities on the order 3000 tons and catamaran LSTs. How do I escape disco age solutions to ancient problems?

[Crookfur]

Speaking of SMGs Ford Mechanized Infantry don't even bother with them. Just rifles, plumbing carbines, support rifles, shotguns and GPMGs. The ultimate goodness.

Anyone else have their 40s-50s mechanized squads?

Not really though much about it until now.

By the end of Crookfur's civil unpleasantness of the 1940s the infantry squad is probably a bit of a mess with a mix of bolt actions, self loaders, SMGs and little not M1 automatic carbines all being mixed up. By the early 50s the carbine vs SMG thing should be sorted (probably in favour of a cheap SMG) and more self loaders would be appearing. Of course in 1957 the not AR10/FAL ginger headed step child comes along...

Probably the 10 man mechanised section looks like:
Section leader with carbine,
Lance corporal with SMG/carbine
2 vehicle crew with SMGS.
LMG gunner
LMG assistant with carbine
4 squaddies with bolt action or self loading rifles.

[Fordorsia]

Speaking of SMGs Ford Mechanized Infantry don't even bother with them. Just rifles, plumbing carbines, support rifles, shotguns and GPMGs. The ultimate goodness.

Anyone else have their 40s-50s mechanized squads?

Not really though much about it until now.

By the end of Crookfur's civil unpleasantness of the 1940s the infantry squad is probably a bit of a mess with a mix of bolt actions, self loaders, SMGs and little not M1 automatic carbines all being mixed up. By the early 50s the carbine vs SMG thing should be sorted (probably in favour of a cheap SMG) and more self loaders would be appearing. Of course in 1957 the not AR10/FAL ginger headed step child comes along...

Probably the 10 man mechanised section looks like:
Section leader with carbine,
Lance corporal with SMG/carbine
2 vehicle crew with SMGS.
LMG gunner
LMG assistant with carbine
4 squaddies with bolt action or self loading rifles.

Why SMGs over carbines? The reason I have no SMGs in mine, not even for the vehicle crew, is so that everyone has the same ammo and so they still have good range in case they have to get in da fight, while still having the same size, weight and general magazine capacity in their plumbing carbines.

[Gallia-]

Approximate Gallan 1950s infantrymen.

Missing the 6.5mm Brens.

And they're a bit too colonial.