Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]

[Rhodesialund]

This thread is hell.

If this is hell, then what was the sin committed?

Existing in the first place.

[Eisarn-Ara]

If this is hell, then what was the sin committed?

Existing in the first place.

huh, my knee-jerk reaction comment was right.

[Pteroslavia new]

Newly designed (For me at least) Infantry Platoon, circa 1883
50 men (36 Conscript/Recruits, 6 Corporals, 3 Junior Sergeants, 2 Senior Sergeants, 2 Junior Lieutenants, 1 Lieutenant) + Gun crew of 4 (3 Gunners, 1 Gunner Sergeant)
Equipment: 50 KA Gwintowka wz.80, 10 KA Karabin wz.81 + 5 KA Karabin wz.81, 1 70mm M83
(Image)
Was looking to see if anyone had any opinions on it, or perhaps advice.

I can't really say for sure but it all feels a bit too modern for the period.

At the time The british were still using 26 man sections (sgt,cpl and 24men) 2 of which made a half/demi company (commanded by a ltn) and two demis made a company (lead by a cptn/mjr and two drummers/buglers).


having essentially modern squaded platoons might have been a thing elsewhere for all i know as i'm not brilliant on what the europeans were upto during the period but it still feels wrong.

However having a gun at paltoon level is definitely out of place. If the infantry had thier own guns they wouldn't appear below the battalion.

[Fordorsia]

Could the MG42 be scaled up to use .50 BMG like how the M2 is a scaled up M1919?

[Free-Don]

Could the MG42 be scaled up to use .50 BMG like how the M2 is a scaled up M1919?

This makes me think it can...

[Gallia-]

Could the MG42 be scaled up to use .50 BMG like how the M2 is a scaled up M1919?

Anything can be scaled up.

Scaling up doesn't mean "less work". It's actually standard practice.

[Free-Don]

Could the MG42 be scaled up to use .50 BMG like how the M2 is a scaled up M1919?

Anything can be scaled up.

Scaling up doesn't mean "less work". It's actually standard practice.

Scaling down is also common enough: commie remover to SPUSEAL FRuzzzez

[Puzikas]

Could the MG42 be scaled up to use .50 BMG like how the M2 is a scaled up M1919?

Yes but it's not going to have remotely the same advantages as the M1919 offered in it's upscale/adaption to the .50BMG cartridge.

[Aethal]

Could the MG42 be scaled up to use .50 BMG like how the M2 is a scaled up M1919?

Yes but it's not going to have remotely the same advantages as the M1919 offered in it's upscale/adaption to the .50BMG cartridge.

Sustained Fire at it's finest.

[Purpelia]

What is the largest and most powerful round in the 20mm and 30mm categories respectively that is reasonable to use on a WW2 era fighter? Basically I am contemplating 20x142 in an internal wing mount and am not sure if that would work fabulously or sheer the wings off.

[Laritaia]

What is the largest and most powerful round in the 20mm and 30mm categories respectively that is reasonable to use on a WW2 era fighter? Basically I am contemplating 20x142 in an internal wing mount and am not sure if that would work fabulously or sheer the wings off.

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

[Puzikas]

AFAIK the MK103 with it's 30x184mmB was the most powerful cartridge and cannon of that particular set.

[Fordorsia]

Could the MG42 be scaled up to use .50 BMG like how the M2 is a scaled up M1919?

Yes but it's not going to have remotely the same advantages as the M1919 offered in it's upscale/adaption to the .50BMG cartridge.

How come?

MK103

oh ya bb

[Puzikas]

It's not intended to provide the same sustained fire as the M1919 was per se

[Fordorsia]

So it would probably still have a very high rate of fire, making it not all that practical?

Or do you mean the action just isn't suited to many many big cartridges getting it all hot and bothered

[Laywenrania]

What is the largest and most powerful round in the 20mm and 30mm categories respectively that is reasonable to use on a WW2 era fighter? Basically I am contemplating 20x142 in an internal wing mount and am not sure if that would work fabulously or sheer the wings off.

historically for 30 mm it was the MK103 in terms of "damage" (a 330g projectile with 25% HE content). The 23x152 of the VYa was in the 20mm range the most powerful afaik, for "true" 20mm it was either the Hispano 20x110 or the german 20x82 Minenshell, the first beeing generally larger, heavier and a tad faster, the second having thin walls and a high epxlosive content.

[Fordorsia]

What is the largest and most powerful round in the 20mm and 30mm categories respectively that is reasonable to use on a WW2 era fighter? Basically I am contemplating 20x142 in an internal wing mount and am not sure if that would work fabulously or sheer the wings off.

for 30 mm it was the MK103 in terms of "damage" (a 330g projectile with 25% HE content).

What about the MK 108? I thought the whole point of it was it had a much lower velocity in favour of a higher payload, but I can't find any real info on it.

[Laywenrania]

for 30 mm it was the MK103 in terms of "damage" (a 330g projectile with 25% HE content).

What about the MK 108? I thought the whole point of it was it had a much lower velocity in favour of a higher payload, but I can't find any real info on it.

It had the same projectile (aka 330g with 25% HE) but the round only weights 480 g (30x90) compared to 780g of the 30x184B, so less velocity - the MK108 weighted only 60 kg instead of the MK103s 140 kg though and had a higher RoF (10 Rounds per second compared to 7).

aka the MK103 was too heavy and big for the Fighters, so the MK103 was developed: 1,26m shorter, lighter and higher RoF (because of high speed passes against bomber formations)

[Fordorsia]

weak ass b17s going down after four shots

[Kazarogkai]

What is the largest and most powerful round in the 20mm and 30mm categories respectively that is reasonable to use on a WW2 era fighter? Basically I am contemplating 20x142 in an internal wing mount and am not sure if that would work fabulously or sheer the wings off.

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.

[Puzikas]

the action just isn't suited to many many big cartridges getting it all hot and bothered

^

[Fordorsia]

The only solution I see is to make the action even bigger then

[Spreewerke]

I don't see why you'd be worried about camouflage in an urban environment. You're going to be entering the urban environment from non-urban, I would venture to guess, and by the time you're that close, it's easier to find cover than it is to not be seen.

But that close to what? In an urban environment the first sighting of a unit will probably be from the air by an aircraft or UAV because the lines of sight are so much better from above. Preventing detection before entering contact is already a tactical advantage. For special forces in particular being able to evade remote detection well keeping tabs on their opponents prior to encountering them will be essential to success.

You mean those aerial devices that are easily equipped with this?

[Austrasien]

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

[Gallia-]

But that close to what? In an urban environment the first sighting of a unit will probably be from the air by an aircraft or UAV because the lines of sight are so much better from above. Preventing detection before entering contact is already a tactical advantage. For special forces in particular being able to evade remote detection well keeping tabs on their opponents prior to encountering them will be essential to success.

You mean those aerial devices that are easily equipped with this?

Yes.

Which is exactly why I asked how to hide from those aerial devices that are easily equipped with this.

Future optimal visual camouflage is probably a dull grey-ish green or brown because people look like vague grey blobs past 200 yards or so.