Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Dayganistan]

If a military had been successful in putting a general purpose cartridge like .280 British into service would they have kept a full power rifle cartridge around for medium machine guns or would they have just loaded the GPC into them? Asking because I'm planning on having my nation develop a GPC that they put into service in the 60s and use to the present day.

[Crookfur]

They might have done.

Intially the em2 was to be accompanied by the taden gun in British service but they changed their minds a few times over whether it would be a true GPMG or basically a light mg that could be stuck on a tripod ala Bren gun with a medium mg in 30-06 or 7.62 for vehicle and battalion sustained fire use.

There was also some interest in slightly more powerful 8mm medium mgs in various places.

What your nation would do will depend on what is going on around and within it politically.

But its entirely up to you you can justify either approach but what pretty much can be said with some degree of certainty is that it will be all about the gpc at company level and below.

[Free-Don]

I'd still suggest a falling block system. If you want a hammer to dock then you can mount a external hammer on the side.

Basically I am unsure if a falling block system would be safe to use with Chassepot style ammo. If you don't seat the round just right the block might rise and nudge the primer that's at the base and being held in by nothing rigid and than you have a round that can't fire. And it can't extract either because it's paper.

Okay, I was thinking more along the lines of dreyse with the primer in the bullet. You might have extra problems with alignment when it comes to loading as you're pressing the cartridge in. You could rubberized the paper to make is stronger or standardize an extra batch of was around the cartridge but it would still be an issue. I can say you could extract them if you have a heavy hook attached to the lever. It will have to read slightly and the remove the cartridge.

In spite of all these issues the machining and other maintenance costs for making a bolt of similar read locking system might just be too much.

[Purpelia]

Basically I am unsure if a falling block system would be safe to use with Chassepot style ammo. If you don't seat the round just right the block might rise and nudge the primer that's at the base and being held in by nothing rigid and than you have a round that can't fire. And it can't extract either because it's paper.

Okay, I was thinking more along the lines of dreyse with the primer in the bullet. You might have extra problems with alignment when it comes to loading as you're pressing the cartridge in. You could rubberized the paper to make is stronger or standardize an extra batch of was around the cartridge but it would still be an issue. I can say you could extract them if you have a heavy hook attached to the lever. It will have to read slightly and the remove the cartridge.

In spite of all these issues the machining and other maintenance costs for making a bolt of similar read locking system might just be too much.

Lever actions with a bolt like the Winchesters don't have a locking system though. Well they do, it's called your arm. And that's basically what I'd do here as well. Just have a simple forward sliding bolt with no locking at all and pray to god that the cavalryman was pumping iron sufficiently. That and use a relatively mild cartridge (relatively).

[Manokan Republic]

Apparently gunshot wounds and bleed-out form shrapnel are all in your head and if you really believe in yourself, the physical effects of injuries will magically go away.

And no-one gets killed or injured in wars, despite like all of the German and Russian military, like 12 out of 13 million for the germans and 24 out of 34 million for the Russians.

Also sources and scientific papers don't matter.

90% of soldiers won't be hit by anything and, of the 10% who are, 90% will have survivable wounds. Armor only protects certain parts of the body and is there more as a placebo than to actually save your life (though it also fulfills that purpose). The most important thing is having people who can provide basic field medical aide, keeping casualties alive long enough to reach field hospitals.

It depends on the war. For example, in WWII the German army experienced 40% death rates and 90% injury rates (5 million killed, 7 million injured out of 13 million), and the Russian experienced 30% death rates and 70% injury rates (10 million killed, 14 million injured out of 34 million), largely from easily preventable forms of death body armor would have helped.

Shrapnel for example was responsible for 60-80% of combat casualties in most cases, and even things like freezing to death can be mitigated by better body armor, if it's designed to be worn with appropriate clothing. Poland and the Ukraine experienced similarly high death rates, as did say many forces in WWI.


Most of the deaths were not from bullets, but artillery and bombings, and even light body armor can prevent the majority of this. It's why helmets were a thing, although full body coverage would have been better. So, body armor will experienced use in larger numbers depending on the conflict, and as it's best to be prepared for every conflict before hand, body armor for all your soldiers is a good idea. It also lowers medical costs for those that are injured, and improves your combat performance.

[Manokan Republic]

Okay, I was thinking more along the lines of dreyse with the primer in the bullet. You might have extra problems with alignment when it comes to loading as you're pressing the cartridge in. You could rubberized the paper to make is stronger or standardize an extra batch of was around the cartridge but it would still be an issue. I can say you could extract them if you have a heavy hook attached to the lever. It will have to read slightly and the remove the cartridge.

In spite of all these issues the machining and other maintenance costs for making a bolt of similar read locking system might just be too much.

Lever actions with a bolt like the Winchesters don't have a locking system though. Well they do, it's called your arm. And that's basically what I'd do here as well. Just have a simple forward sliding bolt with no locking at all and pray to god that the cavalryman was pumping iron sufficiently. That and use a relatively mild cartridge (relatively).

Most lever actions do have a locking mechanism, it's just actuated by your hand, and usually released when you pull the trigger. Some firearms like pump action shotguns are also released when you pull the trigger. You don't cling on to the weapon for dear life, it stays lock during firing. I own a lever action, and it uses a locking mechanism. You don't rely on superb grip strength to keep it locked.

[Purpelia]

Most lever actions do have a locking mechanism, it's just actuated by your hand, and usually released when you pull the trigger. Some firearms like pump action shotguns are also released when you pull the trigger. You don't cling on to the weapon for dear life, it stays lock during firing. I own a lever action, and it uses a locking mechanism. You don't rely on superb grip strength to keep it locked.

I was under the impression that was the good ones. As in, stuff that wasn't from the 1830's or something. We are talking ultra early lever action here from before there were metallic cartridges.

[Gallia-]

grg98 is MOST DEFINITELY NOT pf98

it has zero wood-colored plastic bits on it

machine gun squads are triads because i figured every squad can use a machine gun on a tripod sometimes

weapons squads are quadriads because weapons are deployed in overlapping field pairs and move by bounding, separate from the rifle platoons, which they support

battalion has javelin now (RBS 59) and grg98 is the primary anti-tank weapon alongside RBS 58 (a 15 kg Spike-SR) and RBS 57 (literal SRAW) for the rifle company

battalion also has 81mm mortars with STRIX for killing tanku-chans too and Stinger missiles because no paratrooper is complete until he jumps with the Stinger Missile Jump Pack

[Theodosiya]

I just remembered about my Mech Inf platoon arrangements. Can you guys tell me the best arrangement, while keeping the number of squad members above nine? For capability to absorb casualties

[Purpelia]

I just remembered about my Mech Inf platoon arrangements. Can you guys tell me the best arrangement, while keeping the number of squad members above nine? For capability to absorb casualties

Well basically the formula for a good infantry squad is something like this:
[ Belt Fed [ Light | Medium | General Purpose ] Machinegun + ] [ [ Disposable RPG | Non Disposable RPG | ATGM ] + ] [ rifle grenades * ] [ DMR * ] [ Miscellaneous^[1] * ]

And a platoon is essentially just a mega-squad. So the formula is pretty much the same except you start with multiple squads already. So like:

[ squad ] {3, } [ Belt Fed [ Light | Medium | General Purpose ] Machinegun + ] [ [ Disposable RPG | Non Disposable RPG | ATGM ] + ] [ rifle grenades * ] [ DMR * ] [ Miscellaneous^[1] * ]

^[1] Basically random stuff like the XM-25, those Chinese light GMG's, grenade launchers like the MGL, submachineguns, PDW's, handguns etc. Stuff that you basically add for flavor more than anything as the squad gets all it really needs from the remaining weapons.

Also, note that I did not include rifles as it goes without saying that every soldier not using a special weapon, and even most of those that do is going to get a rifle and bayonet. And even those that don't get a rifle like the MG guys get bayonets because need.

Hope this helped.

[Gallia-]

Can you guys tell me the best arrangement

There isn't one.

[Austrasien]

Squad
Squad
Squad
Squad
Weapons Squad

[Gallia-]

>quadriad maneuver platoons

the brainyots of the infantry lieutenants will be overwhelmed by such hihg advanced think

you should rename one of them "platoon HQ" so you have a more accurate representation of the battlefield or maybe "lieutenant's escort retinue"

rly the most intuitive think is in thirds: one moving, one shooting, one flanking; two up, one back; etc.

e: so why would someone pick a rokit over a shell (like SMAW vs. Carl Gustav) asking for a friend? rokit is lighter (or rather, has a greater payload fraction)/shell is faster for a given diameter respectively?

[Tule]

>quadriad maneuver platoons

the brainyots of the infantry lieutenants will be overwhelmed by such hihg advanced think

you should rename one of them "platoon HQ" so you have a more accurate representation of the battlefield or maybe "lieutenant's escort retinue"

rly the most intuitive think is in thirds: one moving, one shooting, one flanking; two up, one back; etc.

e: so why would someone pick a rokit over a shell (like SMAW vs. Carl Gustav) asking for a friend? rokit is lighter (or rather, has a greater payload fraction)/shell is faster for a given diameter respectively?

Speculation:

Spin stabilization isn't great for HEAT.

[Manokan Republic]

Most lever actions do have a locking mechanism, it's just actuated by your hand, and usually released when you pull the trigger. Some firearms like pump action shotguns are also released when you pull the trigger. You don't cling on to the weapon for dear life, it stays lock during firing. I own a lever action, and it uses a locking mechanism. You don't rely on superb grip strength to keep it locked.

I was under the impression that was the good ones. As in, stuff that wasn't from the 1830's or something. We are talking ultra early lever action here from before there were metallic cartridges.

Most of them use a locking mechanism, even break actions and the like of the time period used locking mechanisms. Weaker lever actions were often unable to fire high pressure cartridges, but they still had locking mechanisms, just not very good one. You don't really use grip strength to keep it locked in and it probably wouldn't work. xP

[Manokan Republic]

>quadriad maneuver platoons

the brainyots of the infantry lieutenants will be overwhelmed by such hihg advanced think

you should rename one of them "platoon HQ" so you have a more accurate representation of the battlefield or maybe "lieutenant's escort retinue"

rly the most intuitive think is in thirds: one moving, one shooting, one flanking; two up, one back; etc.

e: so why would someone pick a rokit over a shell (like SMAW vs. Carl Gustav) asking for a friend? rokit is lighter (or rather, has a greater payload fraction)/shell is faster for a given diameter respectively?

Disposability and weight. Most soldiers can only carry so much ammunition in to combat, and for example a carl gustav is 22 pounds, and loaded is about 28-30 pounds loaded with one round, and that's the weight of two AT-4's which have similar payloads. Rocket launchers are simpler and smaller, and a recoilless rifle is not only usually heavier, but also more technically sophisticated as it needs to be more precisely tuned to release the propellant required to shoot the projectile. Typically they also have a bit bigger backblast too.

As most soldiers only carry 1-2 rockets in combat anyways, a SMAW, carl gustav or the like would simply be heavier and overly sophisticated for the job. Now if you wanted to fire multiple rounds, a recoilless rifle is usually better, but soldiers can typically only carry so much weight in to combat. When you consider that most soldiers only carry 75-100 pounds in to combat, weight is a considerable factor, especially on top of a rifle, basic equipment and things like food and water. A fire and forget weapon is typically more viable for infantry, and as it only needs to be fired once, can afford to be lighter as it doesn't have to withstand the pressures of multiple rockets at a time. On the other hand lighter carl gustaf's have been made, so if you use one of those it makes more sense.

Compared to the original gustaf, the newer M4 variant is 7.5 pounds lighter weighing 15 pounds and shorter, being just 37 inches long, compared to 43 inches before. So it would be more viable as a replacement. The weapon and two rounds would instead be 27-30 pounds, which is about the same as two AT-4's, but has a longer range and more power. With 2-3 more rockets it's actually a better solution given the longer range and proportionately lower weight. So basically it depends on the variant and how many rockets you plan on carrying in to combat. As of 2018, the U.S. has developed a new carl gustaf and it will be using it instead, so with the weight issue of the weight it's back to the gustaf.

[Manokan Republic]

I just remembered about my Mech Inf platoon arrangements. Can you guys tell me the best arrangement, while keeping the number of squad members above nine? For capability to absorb casualties

There's not really a best squad arrangement ,but for the most part the U.S. military and most western military's use leap frog, or bounding over watch. The basic idea is that one team lays down lays down covering fire, and the other advances, and then they alternate, or they switch back and forthwith to some other duty. So for example one team lays down covering fire, and the other reloads, or shoots a grenade, moves to a better position, calls in something on the radio like an airstrike and so on and so forth. The idea is a constant stream on fire on he enemy, so they're always too afraid to stick their heads out and can't move unimpeded. You never want to move out of cover or concealment or do something that takes up the use of your hands without a buddy protecting you at all times. Typically, 4 man fireteams utilize 1 machine gunner, 1 grenadier, and two riflemen, which can provide any number of job duties from marksmen, to reconnaissance, to radio operation, to medicine, to simply shooting at the enemy. Sometimes multiple grenadiers are present if weight is less of an issue. A standard 9 man army squad has two teams of four that alternate in bounding overwatch, and then one sergeant added to the outside for 9 men. Sometimes you might have an extra marksmen or medic as the 9th man instead as well, or some other unit. The british army as well as many others use the 9 man squad.

The marines use a 13-14 man squad, as do a lot of special forces, although most APC's don't transport that many men. They work in the same way, but instead have a third fire and maneuver team, which can either carry heavy weapons, or alternate with the rest of the squad. With three fireteams you can do geometric squad attacks, like L ambushes, triangular attacks, pincer maneuvers, or alternate bounding overwatch in more randomized and unpredictable ways. For a smaller bounding over watch team of 3, you can use 3 teams of 3 instead, for 9-10 men, which fits in an APC better. The main advantage is strategic and tactical capabilities, but also get a more powerful and larger squad on average as well.

Bounding overwatch can be use with as little a 2 men, and so sometimes really small units use 2-3 teams of 2, like reconnaissance teams, for as little as 4-6 men, which requires a lot of heavy weapons in the squad. Typically grenades are more deadly but machine guns are better for suppression, so that's the real choice in terms of firepower.


Due to the fact the squad is mechanized, you might consider carrying heavier weapons, such as one team in the squad having a heavier machine gun, like a 7.62mm machine gun, or a rocket launcher or the like. When soldiers don't have to worry about traveling as far on foot and the APC can be loaded with extra ammunition and food and water instead, you can resupply in combat faster and carry heavier weights, and thus heavier guns with heavier ammunition are easier to work with. You might also consider something akin to the AGS-30, or an automatic grenade launcher that can be deployed by a single soldier.

[Gallia-]

>quadriad maneuver platoons

the brainyots of the infantry lieutenants will be overwhelmed by such hihg advanced think

you should rename one of them "platoon HQ" so you have a more accurate representation of the battlefield or maybe "lieutenant's escort retinue"

rly the most intuitive think is in thirds: one moving, one shooting, one flanking; two up, one back; etc.

e: so why would someone pick a rokit over a shell (like SMAW vs. Carl Gustav) asking for a friend? rokit is lighter (or rather, has a greater payload fraction)/shell is faster for a given diameter respectively?

Speculation:

Spin stabilization isn't great for HEAT.

So explain why the Swedes didn't just make a 3.5" Bazooka or Panzerschreck.

It basically goes: Bazooka/Panzerschreck --> M67/Carl Gustaf --> SMAW/RPG-29/PF-98???

Disposability and weight.

What is disposable about PF-98 or SMAW's ammunition that isn't disposable about an empty case from a Carl Gustaf? Weight is possible but that really cannot be everything since RPG-29 exists and has zero mass advantage over DARD 120.

Most soldiers can only carry so much ammunition in to combat, and for example a carl gustav is 22 pounds, and loaded is about 28-30 pounds loaded with one round, and that's the weight of two AT-4's which have similar payloads. Rocket launchers are simpler and smaller, and a recoilless rifle is not only usually heavier, but also more technically sophisticated as it needs to be more precisely tuned to release the propellant required to shoot the projectile. Typically they also have a bit bigger backblast too.

Here is what I think the real reason is:

Rockets can be separated into separate components. Which is to say they can be compartmentalized. The SMAW breaks down into two components: ammunition and launcher. The launcher is very small because half of its length and weight is a self-contained rocket that is inserted into the back. This is similar to the operation of the PF-98, another lightweight weapon, but very different from the Carl Gustaf which is a typical WW2 artillery piece, and the RPG-29, which is some sort of hybrid between the two types of launcher. It has the fixed size/mass of the Carl Gustaf or RPG-7, but lacks the latter's pre-ignition gunpowder/ejector charge, and lacks the SMAW's handy breakdown in size.

Recoilless rifles aren't really being made anymore so they appear to be existing out of inertia rather than any innovation, and the most modern recoilless weapons (SMAW, PF-98) are two-piece ordnance designed around a compact fiberglass launcher and combination chamber/ammunition holder that carries a rocket. Since rockets are the inverse of recoilless rifles (being reactive shells) they can be made lighter and smaller than a recoilless rifle, but they also lack the muzzle velocity of the RCLR for reasons that I am not entirely aware of, aside from maybe "big rocket motor = big hurt for gunner" and "recoilless shells retain more pressure before blowing out" or something.

There are a few weird/oddball exceptions to this like the RPG-29 and RPG-7 which are relatively heavy/light for their class of weapon, respectively, but aside from that it seems to be broadly true.

stuff

AT-4 is a rocket launcher.
SMAW is a rocket launcher.
Carl Gustaf is a recoilless rifle.

Why are you comparing them?

They are completely different mechanisms and Grg m/48 gunners carried 4-6 rounds into combat alongside the RCLR anyway (the loader carried 6-8 rounds for a total of 12 rounds). I'm asking about the difference between the rocket and the shell, I don't actually care about the guns or whatever, and so why you mentioned SMAW and Carl Gustaf in the same breath is perplexing, because you sound like you don't actually understand what I'm asking. Par the course for Manokan though who apparently thinks "being partially correct" is better than being totally wrong.

[Austrasien]

>quadriad maneuver platoons

the brainyots of the infantry lieutenants will be overwhelmed by such hihg advanced think

you should rename one of them "platoon HQ" so you have a more accurate representation of the battlefield or maybe "lieutenant's escort retinue"

rly the most intuitive think is in thirds: one moving, one shooting, one flanking; two up, one back; etc.

h a l f p l a t o o n s. Sections alive in Austrasia.

One for moving, one for shooting. Or two for moving and shooting. The squad, section (which is not a formal level of command) and platoon are all just successively bigger versions of the same thing.

e: so why would someone pick a rokit over a shell (like SMAW vs. Carl Gustav) asking for a friend? rokit is lighter (or rather, has a greater payload fraction)/shell is faster for a given diameter respectively?

Lighter overall because there is no reinforced barrel and because a rocket can burn longer at a lower pressure for the same burnout speed.

[Manokan Republic]

stuff

AT-4 is a rocket launcher.
SMAW is a rocket launcher.
Carl Gustaf is a recoilless rifle.

Why are you comparing them?

They are completely different mechanisms and Grg m/48 gunners carried 4-6 rounds into combat alongside the RCLR anyway (the loader carried 6-8 rounds for a total of 12 rounds). I'm asking about the difference between the rocket and the shell, I don't actually care about the guns or whatever, and so why you mentioned SMAW and Carl Gustaf in the same breath is perplexing, because you sound like you don't actually understand what I'm asking. Par the course for Manokan though who apparently thinks "being partially correct" is better than being totally wrong.

Well first of all being partially correct is better than being totally wrong. That's just stupid to think otherwise. It's better to be a little right than completely wrong, or to contain a disaster rather than have a total disaster. There are degrees of how bad the outcome of something can be. But anyways...

The comparison was just the weight. It's also the reason the SMAW isn't used as often, which isn't specific to recoilless rifles, it's just recoilless rifles aren't used as often for that reason. There's also the fact most recoilless rifles are unguided, so you don't get a high-end javelin-like missile or the like from something that uses propellant only, and you don't the low weight of something disposable like an AT-4. For a lighter weight anti-vehicle weapon, recoilless rifles are simply too heavy. But with newer variants, that's no longer the case, which is why the recoilless rifle is being used again.


"What is disposable about PF-98 or SMAW's ammunition that isn't disposable about an empty case from a Carl Gustaf? Weight is possible but that really cannot be everything since RPG-29 exists and has zero mass advantage over DARD 120."- The SMAW is used about as often as the Carl Gustaf, and in the same situations, although the Carl Gustaf has recently supplanted it due to the ability to make a lighter weight gun. These are not the same type of weapons, they're just used in similar roles, and not used for the same reason. It's a point of comparison. Rocket launchers are used more because the types used more are typically disposable. Rocket launchers that are not used more frequently are non-disposable one's. As for the Russians, it's used like a SMAW. So the reason why a recoilless rifle is not used as often is the same reason why the SMAW or RPG-29 not used as often. Rocket launchers include a wide variety of different weapons, and there is A. always an exception to the rule and B. the simple fact that why we see rocket launchers over recoilless rifles is that certain types of rocket launchers are favored out of all the weapon types in general. It's not that all rocket launchers are favored over all recoilless rifles, but rather that specific rocket launchers are favored over most recoilless rifles and other types of rocket launchers. There is simply a weight issue present with repeatedly fire-able anti-tank weapons.

[Gallia-]

Lighter overall because there is no reinforced barrel and because a rocket can burn longer at a lower pressure for the same burnout speed.

ty sir

but then why is rpg29 so fatass? did the ussr just lag that far behind the USA/IMI/PRC in production of fiberglass? or is there sth special about rpg-29 that makes him need to be made of steel since he seems to have a fairly high MV?

It's better to be a little right than completely wrong,

there isnt a difference tbh

and you might as well always be completely wrong since youre always a little right because youre never completely right

[Austrasien]

I think the RPG-29 tube is just plain old metal. Fibre wrap was bourgeoise I guess.

[Manokan Republic]

It's better to be a little right than completely wrong,

there isnt a difference tbh

and you might as well always be completely wrong since youre always a little right because youre never completely right

Well no-one is completely right about anything, but that's besides the point. I'm right about stuff all the time, you just don't realize it.

And statistically I'd have to be right some of the time, that's just basic logic. Like even a broken clock is right twice a day, or once if it's digital.

[Manokan Republic]

Lighter overall because there is no reinforced barrel and because a rocket can burn longer at a lower pressure for the same burnout speed.

ty sir

but then why is rpg29 so fatass? did the ussr just lag that far behind the USA/IMI/PRC in production of fiberglass? or is there sth special about rpg-29 that makes him need to be made of steel since he seems to have a fairly high MV?

You do realize there's this thing called "the exception to the rule", right? xP

This is more or less about a general trend. Most rocket launchers used are disposable one's, and those are chosen for weight reasons. It's not that all rocket launchers are lighter weight, but just that the one's favored are. There's also the fact the RPG-29 is fairly lightweight for it's power, and has in rare occasions defeated the M1 abrams.

And the fact that some weapon designs are just shitty. You have to consider that sometimes people make mistakes. With government bureaucracy and thousands of decisions being made you have to consider at some point somebody is going to screw up eventually, if not all the time. But in this case the RPG-29 is actually pretty powerful.

[Hayo]

>quadriad maneuver platoons

the brainyots of the infantry lieutenants will be overwhelmed by such hihg advanced think

you should rename one of them "platoon HQ" so you have a more accurate representation of the battlefield or maybe "lieutenant's escort retinue"

rly the most intuitive think is in thirds: one moving, one shooting, one flanking; two up, one back; etc.

e: so why would someone pick a rokit over a shell (like SMAW vs. Carl Gustav) asking for a friend? rokit is lighter (or rather, has a greater payload fraction)/shell is faster for a given diameter respectively?

Wehrmacht had square platoons (4 squads of 10) for a while after switching from big boi 13 man squads. That being said they often became triangular after being sufficiently bloodied.