Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Manokan Republic]

A rather conventional maxim gun chambered in a .50 cal bullet, minus the addition of a somewhat conventional pistol grip and trigger similar to the M1917 BMG. Could it work out ok? More specifically I know that such a thing is theoretically possible since Ive actually heard of examples with even bigger bullets but I want to know if I one could keep it under 150 pounds counting the water, ammo, and tripod and two would it still be able to reasonably serve as the principle Battalion level HMG for an infantry battalion in the interwar-WW2 era. Just thinking it would be a somewhat decent infantry support weapon along with acting as a sort of low level AA weapon, atleast in theory.

The reason for asking honestly is because at the time the Kaza made use of a .25 cal bullet which while performing it's role admirably they considered in their HMGs as a little under powered relative to their rivals after experience fighting in WW1 against the British and their allies. Hence what was originally only meant to function as and was inspired by the Germans 13mm MG08 in an AT/AA role ending up replacing their older .25 cal MMG as their main MG. At least that's the story I'm going with for the most part.

Thoughts?

It should be, although the maxim machine gun was a bit less advanced than the later browning machine guns. The .50 caliber round was actually designed to be almost proportionately identical to the .30-06, but scaled up, invented specifically for use in the new machine gun made by browning at the time, based on the original M1919. So it should work in the maxim machine gun given that it was designed specifically to work in autoloading machine guns, and the .30-06 worked just fine in the maxim. A weight of 150 pounds seems reasonable with a tripod and is not that far off from the browning. It's a basic recoil operated design, so to my knowledge there's not much that can go wrong with it.

[Taihei Tengoku]

A rather conventional maxim gun chambered in a .50 cal bullet, minus the addition of a somewhat conventional pistol grip and trigger similar to the M1917 BMG. Could it work out ok? More specifically I know that such a thing is theoretically possible since Ive actually heard of examples with even bigger bullets but I want to know if I one could keep it under 150 pounds counting the water, ammo, and tripod and two would it still be able to reasonably serve as the principle Battalion level HMG for an infantry battalion in the interwar-WW2 era. Just thinking it would be a somewhat decent infantry support weapon along with acting as a sort of low level AA weapon, atleast in theory.

The reason for asking honestly is because at the time the Kaza made use of a .25 cal bullet which while performing it's role admirably they considered in their HMGs as a little under powered relative to their rivals after experience fighting in WW1 against the British and their allies. Hence what was originally only meant to function as and was inspired by the Germans 13mm MG08 in an AT/AA role ending up replacing their older .25 cal MMG as their main MG. At least that's the story I'm going with for the most part.

Thoughts?

There's already a .50 caliber Vickers gun. It wasn't that great.

[Morrdh]

Hmmm... well, it's not a terrible option, it's just a little heavier than you might like, and a little less aerodynamic. If an emphasis of power was made on the round, it could become bigger, and thus be capable of using larger more aerodynamic projectiles. There's also very strangely constructed projectiles that might increase the BC.

HOWEVER! I think I've got an idea. First, I did find a 150 grain 7mm round with a really high BC, at .574 which is actually quite high, so you there is room for improvement over the original round. The price of the bullet is quite high, but this can be overcome given that, bullets are pretty cheap anyways relative to the whole military, and mass produced versions, like the 75 grain tula ammunition variants of the 77 grain blackhills ammunition, is usually about as aerodynamic, but just less accurate. Second, the .280 british went through a number of revisions, from aluminum cased rounds to higher pressure rounds. My idea would be to switch to an aluminum case, so that way it's much lighter weight, and a guess based on the bullet weight and overall cartridge weight (9.1 grams for the bullet, 20.3 grams for the cartridge, and no clear mention of how much powder it uses) would be that it would be 14-15 grams instead of 20.3 grams, which is quite a good achievement. Third, you could have two variants of the cartridge, a higher velocity one intended for use in machine guns and designated marksmen weapons, and a lower velocity one for use in the normal every day rifles. By using more powerful gunpowder, you could get the cartridge going all the way up to 850 m/s or more, but it would have a lot more recoil. So instead, you have the lower velocity round designed for use in regulr rifles, and the higher velocity rounds designed for use in heavier machine guns.

In this way, you could have say, a 2600-2800 joule variant for your rifle, and a 3500-4000 joule variant for your heavier weapons like machine guns, and in theory both guns could fire both rounds. So instead of having two different bullets like a 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO, you have two identically sized .280 bullets that could feed in to the same guns, but one is more powerful and is intended for use in heavier weapons, and in a pinch could be used in your lighter rifles, or on purpose in something like a designated marksmen rifle. This would in theory reduce the complexity of sharing features between the weapons, and also makes it so you can share ammunition when you need to, with heavier machine guns potentially using the weaker ammunition when in an infantry squad, and more powerful ammunition if mounted on a tripod or something. You incorporate the history of the round in to your design, and also get a fairly light and powerful full sized rifle round, as well as a decent intermediate cartridge. The velocity would be low, but it still would be about the same as an Ak-47, 7.62mm NATO sniper round, or 8mm mauser, so it wouldn't be fantastically slow. You would have good barrier penetration, and in testing the 7mm rounds showed better timber and wood penetration than the .30-06 at the time, so it seems ot hold true. Higher velocity rounds have a tendency to disintegrate or be deflected by common barriers, like sand, glass, thin sheet metal, and something like an Ak-47 penetrates through stuff like concrete extremely well, while a 5.56mm really does no, being stopped by glass, small amounts of sand and other things like this. The 7mm round would penetrate armor slightly worse, but given it's size and power, it would be at least as good as the 5.56mm.

By my comparisons, this more or less would be a rough figure of the round's capabilities. The .280 British actually does really well, remaining super-sonic until 1200 yards with 423 ft/lb (571 joules) of energy, while maintaining energy equal to the 5.56mm at 350-400 yards (1800 joules), and at 600 yards having 935 ft pounds (1260 joules), which is more or less equal to an M4 carbine. For the higher velocity .280 british, it has as much energy as the 5.56mm at 600 yards, remains super sonic until 1400 yards with 423 ft/lb (571 joules), doing quite well at 300 yards as well. The 5.56mm is only supersonic at 550 yard with 311 ft/lb (420 joules), and 665 foot pounds (900 joules) at 300 yards, while the 7.62mm nato is super sonic at 850 yards at 426 foot pounds (575 joules), and has 5.56mm energy at 350 yards. Basically, the regular, non-high velocity .280 british is as powerful as the 5.56mm at 350-400 yards, and is super sonic until 1200 yards, longer than the 850 yard range of the 7.62mm NATO. You get about the same range with the high velocity .280 british, but way higher power levels than the 7.62mm NATO at long ranges, with the low velocity .280 british surpassing the 7.62mm NATO a 400 yards Despite the higher energy levels, the better aerodynamics of the 7mm would in this case mean it is actually more powerful than the 7.62mm at long ranges, and would penetrate slightly better through most barriers. Sufficient power at close ranges, and greater power at long ranges. Ultimately, the bullet drop is less than the 5.56mm or 7.62mm NATO at ranges where it matters, due to it's better aerodynamics meaning it slows down less, even with a lower initial muzzle velocity.

So! It possesses a significant advantage, a long range allowing it to compete with heavier rounds, and pretty decent power, giving it theoretically good barrier penetration (slightly heavier and faster than the Ak, with a skinnier bullet, should equate to better penetration). Your only issue would be recoil, given it's fairly close to .308 levels, and this could be compensated for in part with a muzzle break, smoother action and dual spring guide rods, along with other recoil reducing measures. A simple but not as commonly used method to reduce recoil is a simple shoulder pad, and if made out of bullet proof material like body armor, would serve multiple purposes and absorb energy well, thus reducing much of the impact of felt recoil. As long a muzzle rise is eliminated, a shoulder pad can help eliminate any pain you might feel from shooting, so if the recoil could conceivably be uncomfortable in rapid fire, this problem is more or less eliminated. From what I've seen the EM-2 was not uncomfortable to shoot in semi auto, but was hard to control in full auto. Recoil reducing measures combined with a forward grip could help eliminate some of that, as well as a shoulder pad so you could squeeze it in your shoulder real tight without hurting yourself.

I was thinking different versions of the same round with one for the assault rifle and the other for MGs/DMR.

As I said, I'm probably going to change the action from a flapper lock to a multi-lug rotating bolt but keep the long-stroke piston.

In theory, how long would the .280 British last (if catering to the Americans wasn't an option)? Or would it be best to switch to a SCVH round?

[Crookfur]

Hmmm... well, it's not a terrible option, it's just a little heavier than you might like, and a little less aerodynamic. If an emphasis of power was made on the round, it could become bigger, and thus be capable of using larger more aerodynamic projectiles. There's also very strangely constructed projectiles that might increase the BC.

HOWEVER! I think I've got an idea. First, I did find a 150 grain 7mm round with a really high BC, at .574 which is actually quite high, so you there is room for improvement over the original round. The price of the bullet is quite high, but this can be overcome given that, bullets are pretty cheap anyways relative to the whole military, and mass produced versions, like the 75 grain tula ammunition variants of the 77 grain blackhills ammunition, is usually about as aerodynamic, but just less accurate. Second, the .280 british went through a number of revisions, from aluminum cased rounds to higher pressure rounds. My idea would be to switch to an aluminum case, so that way it's much lighter weight, and a guess based on the bullet weight and overall cartridge weight (9.1 grams for the bullet, 20.3 grams for the cartridge, and no clear mention of how much powder it uses) would be that it would be 14-15 grams instead of 20.3 grams, which is quite a good achievement. Third, you could have two variants of the cartridge, a higher velocity one intended for use in machine guns and designated marksmen weapons, and a lower velocity one for use in the normal every day rifles. By using more powerful gunpowder, you could get the cartridge going all the way up to 850 m/s or more, but it would have a lot more recoil. So instead, you have the lower velocity round designed for use in regulr rifles, and the higher velocity rounds designed for use in heavier machine guns.

In this way, you could have say, a 2600-2800 joule variant for your rifle, and a 3500-4000 joule variant for your heavier weapons like machine guns, and in theory both guns could fire both rounds. So instead of having two different bullets like a 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO, you have two identically sized .280 bullets that could feed in to the same guns, but one is more powerful and is intended for use in heavier weapons, and in a pinch could be used in your lighter rifles, or on purpose in something like a designated marksmen rifle. This would in theory reduce the complexity of sharing features between the weapons, and also makes it so you can share ammunition when you need to, with heavier machine guns potentially using the weaker ammunition when in an infantry squad, and more powerful ammunition if mounted on a tripod or something. You incorporate the history of the round in to your design, and also get a fairly light and powerful full sized rifle round, as well as a decent intermediate cartridge. The velocity would be low, but it still would be about the same as an Ak-47, 7.62mm NATO sniper round, or 8mm mauser, so it wouldn't be fantastically slow. You would have good barrier penetration, and in testing the 7mm rounds showed better timber and wood penetration than the .30-06 at the time, so it seems ot hold true. Higher velocity rounds have a tendency to disintegrate or be deflected by common barriers, like sand, glass, thin sheet metal, and something like an Ak-47 penetrates through stuff like concrete extremely well, while a 5.56mm really does no, being stopped by glass, small amounts of sand and other things like this. The 7mm round would penetrate armor slightly worse, but given it's size and power, it would be at least as good as the 5.56mm.

By my comparisons, this more or less would be a rough figure of the round's capabilities. The .280 British actually does really well, remaining super-sonic until 1200 yards with 423 ft/lb (571 joules) of energy, while maintaining energy equal to the 5.56mm at 350-400 yards (1800 joules), and at 600 yards having 935 ft pounds (1260 joules), which is more or less equal to an M4 carbine. For the higher velocity .280 british, it has as much energy as the 5.56mm at 600 yards, remains super sonic until 1400 yards with 423 ft/lb (571 joules), doing quite well at 300 yards as well. The 5.56mm is only supersonic at 550 yard with 311 ft/lb (420 joules), and 665 foot pounds (900 joules) at 300 yards, while the 7.62mm nato is super sonic at 850 yards at 426 foot pounds (575 joules), and has 5.56mm energy at 350 yards. Basically, the regular, non-high velocity .280 british is as powerful as the 5.56mm at 350-400 yards, and is super sonic until 1200 yards, longer than the 850 yard range of the 7.62mm NATO. You get about the same range with the high velocity .280 british, but way higher power levels than the 7.62mm NATO at long ranges, with the low velocity .280 british surpassing the 7.62mm NATO a 400 yards Despite the higher energy levels, the better aerodynamics of the 7mm would in this case mean it is actually more powerful than the 7.62mm at long ranges, and would penetrate slightly better through most barriers. Sufficient power at close ranges, and greater power at long ranges. Ultimately, the bullet drop is less than the 5.56mm or 7.62mm NATO at ranges where it matters, due to it's better aerodynamics meaning it slows down less, even with a lower initial muzzle velocity.

So! It possesses a significant advantage, a long range allowing it to compete with heavier rounds, and pretty decent power, giving it theoretically good barrier penetration (slightly heavier and faster than the Ak, with a skinnier bullet, should equate to better penetration). Your only issue would be recoil, given it's fairly close to .308 levels, and this could be compensated for in part with a muzzle break, smoother action and dual spring guide rods, along with other recoil reducing measures. A simple but not as commonly used method to reduce recoil is a simple shoulder pad, and if made out of bullet proof material like body armor, would serve multiple purposes and absorb energy well, thus reducing much of the impact of felt recoil. As long a muzzle rise is eliminated, a shoulder pad can help eliminate any pain you might feel from shooting, so if the recoil could conceivably be uncomfortable in rapid fire, this problem is more or less eliminated. From what I've seen the EM-2 was not uncomfortable to shoot in semi auto, but was hard to control in full auto. Recoil reducing measures combined with a forward grip could help eliminate some of that, as well as a shoulder pad so you could squeeze it in your shoulder real tight without hurting yourself.

I was thinking different versions of the same round with one for the assault rifle and the other for MGs/DMR.

As I said, I'm probably going to change the action from a flapper lock to a multi-lug rotating bolt but keep the long-stroke piston.

In theory, how long would the .280 British last (if catering to the Americans wasn't an option)? Or would it be best to switch to a SCVH round?

It could probably last until the 80s at which point your rifles will approaching end of life and the wholsale switch in both rifles and ammo is probably at its most palitable.

To be honest I'm not so hot on the idea of different loads for different weapons, particularly if the differences are as big as have been mentioned. It's the.303 mk vlll loading all over again and highly likely to end up in a lot of shagged rifles as your squads do thier utmost to ignore warnings about using the mg ammo in thier rifles..

[Morrdh]

I was thinking different versions of the same round with one for the assault rifle and the other for MGs/DMR.

As I said, I'm probably going to change the action from a flapper lock to a multi-lug rotating bolt but keep the long-stroke piston.

In theory, how long would the .280 British last (if catering to the Americans wasn't an option)? Or would it be best to switch to a SCVH round?

It could probably last until the 80s at which point your rifles will approaching end of life and the wholsale switch in both rifles and ammo is probably at its most palitable.

To be honest I'm not so hot on the idea of different loads for different weapons, particularly if the differences are as big as have been mentioned. It's the.303 mk vlll loading all over again and highly likely to end up in a lot of shagged rifles as your squads do thier utmost to ignore warnings about using the mg ammo in thier rifles..

Suggestion I've been given is switch to the 5.56 NATO with a M16 based system in the '80s.

The MG ammo is going to be in belts, though regardless it is probably going to be issue whilst the cartridge and weapon is in service.

Though with the switch to 5.56, what do I do for squad MG and DMR?

[Kassaran]

Suggestion I've been given is switch to the 5.56 NATO with a M16 based system in the '80s.

The MG ammo is going to be in belts, though regardless it is probably going to be issue whilst the cartridge and weapon is in service.

Though with the switch to 5.56, what do I do for squad MG and DMR?

Squad MG can probably be pseudo M60 with your DMR just being a post-WW2 Battle Rifle design like the M14 was.

[Danternoust]

Though with the switch to 5.56, what do I do for squad MG and DMR?

replace both with either grenade launchers or towed automatic gun-mortars.

[Crookfur]

It could probably last until the 80s at which point your rifles will approaching end of life and the wholsale switch in both rifles and ammo is probably at its most palitable.

To be honest I'm not so hot on the idea of different loads for different weapons, particularly if the differences are as big as have been mentioned. It's the.303 mk vlll loading all over again and highly likely to end up in a lot of shagged rifles as your squads do thier utmost to ignore warnings about using the mg ammo in thier rifles..

Suggestion I've been given is switch to the 5.56 NATO with a M16 based system in the '80s.

The MG ammo is going to be in belts, though regardless it is probably going to be issue whilst the cartridge and weapon is in service.

Though with the switch to 5.56, what do I do for squad MG and DMR?

Well M16, ar-18 derivative or even a more refined ak derivative are all options.

If you go with a "heavier". 280 solution you would probably keep that as your main mg ammo but suppliment it with LSW version of your new rifle. Said LSW could overlap with the dmr role but a lot will depend on your nations doctrine for what a dmr needs to do.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Though with the switch to 5.56, what do I do for squad MG and DMR?

replace both with either grenade launchers or towed automatic gun-mortars.

Whatever this person says Morrdh, do the exact opposite.

[Morrdh]

Suggestion I've been given is switch to the 5.56 NATO with a M16 based system in the '80s.

The MG ammo is going to be in belts, though regardless it is probably going to be issue whilst the cartridge and weapon is in service.

Though with the switch to 5.56, what do I do for squad MG and DMR?

Well M16, ar-18 derivative or even a more refined ak derivative are all options.

If you go with a "heavier". 280 solution you would probably keep that as your main mg ammo but suppliment it with LSW version of your new rifle. Said LSW could overlap with the dmr role but a lot will depend on your nations doctrine for what a dmr needs to do.

Probably lean more towards the AK, that basically has the action I wish to use and I guess I can incorporate some features from the EM-2.

As for the DMR, probably best if I show how I envision my squads being laid out. Its basically based on Cold War British structure with an added 'scout' element inspired by ANZAC units in Vietnam.

Rifle Group

Squad Leader - Assault Rifle
4x Rifleman - Assault Rifle

Gun Group

2iC - Assault Rifle
MG Gunner - MG
Loader - Assault Rifle

'Scout' Group

Designated Marksman - DMR
Rifleman/Spotter - Assault Rifle

[Kazarogkai]

A rather conventional maxim gun chambered in a .50 cal bullet, minus the addition of a somewhat conventional pistol grip and trigger similar to the M1917 BMG. Could it work out ok? More specifically I know that such a thing is theoretically possible since Ive actually heard of examples with even bigger bullets but I want to know if I one could keep it under 150 pounds counting the water, ammo, and tripod and two would it still be able to reasonably serve as the principle Battalion level HMG for an infantry battalion in the interwar-WW2 era. Just thinking it would be a somewhat decent infantry support weapon along with acting as a sort of low level AA weapon, atleast in theory.

The reason for asking honestly is because at the time the Kaza made use of a .25 cal bullet which while performing it's role admirably they considered in their HMGs as a little under powered relative to their rivals after experience fighting in WW1 against the British and their allies. Hence what was originally only meant to function as and was inspired by the Germans 13mm MG08 in an AT/AA role ending up replacing their older .25 cal MMG as their main MG. At least that's the story I'm going with for the most part.

Thoughts?

There's already a .50 caliber Vickers gun. It wasn't that great.

To be fair the bullet they used was a bit weak(12.7×81mm), atleast in comparison to the M2's .50 cal bullet(12.7×99mm), in contrast the bullet I'm going to be using is a scaled up version of my current .25 Cal(6.35x50.8mm) being double the size at 12.7x101.6mm making it far more similar in performance to the American than the British gun.

Thanks for the help otherwise guys.

Well M16, ar-18 derivative or even a more refined ak derivative are all options.

If you go with a "heavier". 280 solution you would probably keep that as your main mg ammo but suppliment it with LSW version of your new rifle. Said LSW could overlap with the dmr role but a lot will depend on your nations doctrine for what a dmr needs to do.

Probably lean more towards the AK, that basically has the action I wish to use and I guess I can incorporate some features from the EM-2.

As for the DMR, probably best if I show how I envision my squads being laid out. Its basically based on Cold War British structure with an added 'scout' element inspired by ANZAC units in Vietnam.

Rifle Group

Squad Leader - Assault Rifle
4x Rifleman - Assault Rifle

Gun Group

2iC - Assault Rifle
MG Gunner - MG
Loader - Assault Rifle

'Scout' Group

Designated Marksman - DMR
Rifleman/Spotter - Assault Rifle

Seems kinda scrawny honestly, in the coldwar era I would think 2 machine guns per squad atleast would be the norm at that point in your units, Unless you supplement said force with a good number of other squads to back them up.

[Taihei Tengoku]

There's already a .50 caliber Vickers gun. It wasn't that great.

To be fair the bullet they used was a bit weak(12.7×81mm), atleast in comparison to the M2's .50 cal bullet(12.7×99mm), in contrast the bullet I'm going to be using is a scaled up version of my current .25 Cal(6.35x50.8mm) being double the size at 12.7x101.6mm making it far more similar in performance to the American than the British gun.

A water-cooled gun firing a beefier cartridge will be heavier to compensate. The Browning has not gotten significantly lighter in the century since its introduction, and neither has the Vickers gun. The way to make it lighter will make it very much not a Maxim gun.

[Crookfur]

There's already a .50 caliber Vickers gun. It wasn't that great.

To be fair the bullet they used was a bit weak(12.7×81mm), atleast in comparison to the M2's .50 cal bullet(12.7×99mm), in contrast the bullet I'm going to be using is a scaled up version of my current .25 Cal(6.35x50.8mm) being double the size at 12.7x101.6mm making it far more similar in performance to the American than the British gun.

Thanks for the help otherwise guys.

Probably lean more towards the AK, that basically has the action I wish to use and I guess I can incorporate some features from the EM-2.

As for the DMR, probably best if I show how I envision my squads being laid out. Its basically based on Cold War British structure with an added 'scout' element inspired by ANZAC units in Vietnam.

Rifle Group

Squad Leader - Assault Rifle
4x Rifleman - Assault Rifle

Gun Group

2iC - Assault Rifle
MG Gunner - MG
Loader - Assault Rifle

'Scout' Group

Designated Marksman - DMR
Rifleman/Spotter - Assault Rifle

Seems kinda scrawny honestly, in the coldwar era I would think 2 machine guns per squad atleast would be the norm at that point in your units, Unless you supplement said force with a good number of other squads to back them up.

As he said its pretty much standard for british/commonwealth sections during the cold War which wasn't changed much from the ww2 section. Basically British infantry platoons have been 3x 8-10men section plus a small 4-5 man hq since Ww1 IIRC.
British infantry only got 2 mgs per section when the L86 came along and then in Iraq and Afghanistan things went a bit mental.

Oddly enough the russians were pretty similar with most sections (depending on the actual unit type) having either a pk or rpk.

[Morrdh]

As he said its pretty much standard for british/commonwealth sections during the cold War which wasn't changed much from the ww2 section. Basically British infantry platoons have been 3x 8-10men section plus a small 4-5 man hq since Ww1 IIRC.
British infantry only got 2 mgs per section when the L86 came along and then in Iraq and Afghanistan things went a bit mental.

Oddly enough the russians were pretty similar with most sections (depending on the actual unit type) having either a pk or rpk.

Ditto, what he said.

Regardless, at this stage I'm not sure whether to go with my idea of an improved EM-2 or mate that rifle with an AK.

Then later in the '80s with the switch to 5.56mm, new system based on the M16 or do something like the Ak 47 to Ak 74?

[Crookfur]

To be fair the bullet they used was a bit weak(12.7×81mm), atleast in comparison to the M2's .50 cal bullet(12.7×99mm), in contrast the bullet I'm going to be using is a scaled up version of my current .25 Cal(6.35x50.8mm) being double the size at 12.7x101.6mm making it far more similar in performance to the American than the British gun.

A water-cooled gun firing a beefier cartridge will be heavier to compensate. The Browning has not gotten significantly lighter in the century since its introduction, and neither has the Vickers gun. The way to make it lighter will make it very much not a Maxim gun.

There was the heavier vickers HV mk D which fired the 12.7x120mm which was a bit beefier than the 50bmg.
Of course its desperately unlikely you will be able to feild any kind of maxim or derivative chambered in a true "hmg" cartride in a package massing the same as the basic mg08 package, try 250 to 300lbs.

[Kazarogkai]

As he said its pretty much standard for british/commonwealth sections during the cold War which wasn't changed much from the ww2 section. Basically British infantry platoons have been 3x 8-10men section plus a small 4-5 man hq since Ww1 IIRC.
British infantry only got 2 mgs per section when the L86 came along and then in Iraq and Afghanistan things went a bit mental.

Oddly enough the russians were pretty similar with most sections (depending on the actual unit type) having either a pk or rpk.

Interesting

Ive always generally assumed most countries went to the conclusion of going for 2 MGs per Section in order to allow said Section to be better capable with small unit tactics involving teams of men. That... might change my thinking in terms of how I expect my sections to develop though on the otherhand... maybe not. The reasoning behind why I put 2 MGs within each of my section had less to do with tactical flexibility and more do to a desire to have extra firepower to compensate for the bolt actions prevalent in the rest of the unit and because of doctrine reasons related towards a belief in the supremacy of the mg in terms of it's importance in both the offense and defense and consequently the centering of the entire unit around said mgs. For a group of 12 men 2 LMG's just made sense. Not helped I was inspired after looking at the Italians and their weird platoon structure admittedly. I had a bit of a story around the Kaza in action against the Italians during their invasion of Ethiopia and seeing their sections and not wanting to be outdone decided to give their sections 2 guns each. By 1945, still figuring whether I would want them to fight in WW2 or not, they would have 3 MGs per section with 1 GPMG(think MG-32) and 2 LMGs(think Bren gun) in total. That gives them around 6 seperate types of weapons overall in the entire unit.... Yay?

A Fire Team
SL SMG + Grenade Launcher
Gunner GPMG
Loader Rifle
Assistant

B Maneuver Team
TL Grenade-Shotgun
Gunner LMG
Assistant Rifle
Rifleman Rifle

C Maneuver Team
TL Grenade-Shotgun
Gunner LMG
Assistant Rifle
Rifleman Rifle

[Manokan Republic]

As he said its pretty much standard for british/commonwealth sections during the cold War which wasn't changed much from the ww2 section. Basically British infantry platoons have been 3x 8-10men section plus a small 4-5 man hq since Ww1 IIRC.
British infantry only got 2 mgs per section when the L86 came along and then in Iraq and Afghanistan things went a bit mental.

Oddly enough the russians were pretty similar with most sections (depending on the actual unit type) having either a pk or rpk.

Ditto, what he said.

Regardless, at this stage I'm not sure whether to go with my idea of an improved EM-2 or mate that rifle with an AK.

Then later in the '80s with the switch to 5.56mm, new system based on the M16 or do something like the Ak 47 to Ak 74?

Well a bullpup rifle is smaller and more compact, and if the soldiers are already used to it, it would be ideal to retain it's use, switching to the 5.56mm in your EM-2 or some sort of EM-2 like gun. However you could just improve the .280 british round. The 5.56mm is not really an ideal cartridge, and is heavier than it needs to be for it's power, with lighter cartridges being available even at the time of it's inception. It was a wartime development rushed to the field without much oversight, largely pushed by a single man, Robert McNamera, who didn't know much about guns and was responsible for a lot of weird things, like lying about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It is a very popular cartridge, but is far from ideal for many reasons. It's also worth noting that few other countries in the world adopted the 5.45mm cartridge as it's main rifle cartridge except for Russia. The 5.56mm is not bad, but I don't think it's really necessary to switch to over the .280 British, save for perhaps the advantage of lighter weight ammunition, of which an aluminum .280 british round kind of fixes. In the end though, 10 pounds of ammunition vs. 15 pounds of ammunition only adds 5 pounds to the already ridiculously high 80+ pounds the average soldier carries, so my guess is it's sort of an overblown issue aside from use with heavy machine gunners or extremely lightweight ammo. The velocity advantage is only useful within the first 100-200 yards, when it is immediately lost given the poor aerodynamics of the smaller rounds. That high velocity is not maintained out to long range.

Although your squad set-up is not bad, my main criticism would be a lack of leap frog tactics. The main tactic of modern infantry squads is leap frog or bounding overwatch, that is one unit lays down covering fire while the other advances, and then the two or more teams alternate. You never want to move over open terrain without some kind of covering fire or concealment, as moving out in the open is a good way to get quickly gunned down. Units with heavy machine guns as a base of fire lose the mobility advantage that two or more teams with multiple machine guns have. Covering fire by a small group of riflemen for the advancing heavy machine gun team is usually insufficient, and the danger presented by the fixed position of a heavy machine gun that can't move easily is a significant problem. The germans, who also used a heavy machine gun squad in WWII, quickly found that the machine gun team would be taken out by a few well placed rifle grenades, meaning that even if you rushed across the battlefield and set up the machine gun really quickly, they were effectively sitting ducks easily wiped out by a few well placed grenades or mortar rounds. Given the proliferation of grenade launchers and other explosive weapons in the modern day, it's not ideal to have a heavy fixed portion of the squad, or a poorly mobile section even if it's not designed to stay still, and not ideal to try to have a much lighter fireteam provide covering for for this heavy machine gun team. For infantry with only light armor, you want to use your mobility as your defense, firing and maneuvering to avoid return fire, and either always be on the move or eventually take defensive ground. It would be better to have two heavy machine gun teams bounding off of each other than just one, although if you plan on doing bounding overwatch at the platoon level this can be overcome to an extent, with a squad protecting a whole other squad instead of a squad being able to protect itself (which for obvious reasons can be dangerous if a squad finds itself alone or pinned down). Usually, most squads are broken in to two or more symmetrical fire-teams, with each one having one light machine gun in them, with the U.S. army using two fireteams of four, and the marines typically three fireteams of three or four soldiers. The Chinese also use three times of three.

It's not that a squad based around a single machine gun can't work, it's that it's not ideal and generally less effective, and thus not preferable. The way around this is to break the squad in to smaller pieces, and then use something akin to the M27 IAR, like in the marines as a replacement to a light machine gun. Currently the marines are planning on using a light rifle, sort of like a BAR or browning automatic rifle, in the form of the M27 IAR, to replace two or more of their machine guns in each squad. Basically, you have two bounding overwatch groups and then a heavy machine gun group, with these two fireteams producing sufficient firepower for the heavy machine gun team to advance, albeit not with completely symmetrical bounding over watch capabilities. So, basically one heavy machine gun and then two really-light machine guns to compensate. With sufficient ammunition and reloading skills, you don't need a belt fed weapon, so it isn't as much of a drawback as you might think. The marines also plan to use superior accuracy to overcome some of the problems with using less bullets, with aimed suppressive fire generally being more effective than lots of bullets. Historically, a single well placed sniper round has scared troops more than heavy machine gun fire which misses it's targets. Soldiers will brave machine gun fire when it's fired at random and has a low chance to hit them, but be terrified of snipers who fire just a few rounds. Accuracy can improve suppression essentially. With every soldier having an M27, it sort of blurs the line between light machine gunner and riflemen, giving enough of a firepower boost to compensate for a lack of a machine gun. That's the theory anyways.


So, an idea to maintain the effectiveness of leapfrog in your squad might to have two bounding overwatch teams and then a heavy machine gun team instead, or two have your riflemen all armed with something akin to a light machine gun. You basically have a 6 man instead of 5 man riflemen team, which can act as a single block or be broken in to two pieces, like used in the Bradley. Ideally it would retain your original idea while improving it's defense and strategic options a bit. If all else fails, it's still an improvement in firepower, which is never a bad thing. Strategy is a cost-free force multiplier that only requires the better training and organization of your men, which when can be afforded, should be used. Small unit tactics are an often overlooked but important part of warfare that largely make the difference between professional and irregular military forces. The U.S. military, with a bunch of guys armed with M16's, could easily out do the Viet cong with ak-47's, that for all intents and purposes had weapons better suited for their environment and were largely already dug in to defensive positions. Even without heavy weapons like planes or artillery, which the Viet Cong actually had, the Americans still had higher kill ratios, due to the skill and ability of their soldiers. A navy seal with the same equipment as a regular soldier does better not due to raw firepower, but raw skill. So any time you can improve your strategic capabilities you should, as opposed to any particular squad set-up being bad or good, but rather better vs. mediocre.

This is an 11 man squad instead of a 10 man squad, which might have trouble fitting in some vehicles.

Fireteam 1 (3 men)
-Squad Leader
-2 x Riflemen Assault Rifle

Fireteam 2 (3 men)
-Fireteam Leader
-2 x Riflemen Assault Rifle


Gun Group (2-3 men)
-MG Gunner - MG
-Loader - Assault Rifle
-2iC - Assault Rifle (Optional)

'Scout' Group (1-2 men)
Designated Marksman - DMR
Rifleman/Spotter - Assault Rifle (Optional)



Or, a 9 man team, with the marksmen and machine gunner combined together. They're both in a static position, more or less use the same ammunition, and can take advantage of the loader/spotter, of which the loader acts like a spotter for the machine gun typically anyways. Presumably, the marksmen could break off and go off on his own, or even have a 2 man scout team that can break off from the machine gun team and go off on their own, giving you the flexibility to do both, but that bumps the squad up to 10 men. It might also make sense for the loader or spotter to have a gun that used the same ammunition as the machine gun or marksmen, like a battle rifle, even if it's a smaller less accurate rifle. This is not all that different from how the soviets did things.

9-10 man Team
Fireteam 1 (3 men)
-Squad Leader
-2 x Riflemen Assault Rifle

Fireteam 2 (3 men)
-Fireteam Leader
-2 x Riflemen Assault Rifle


Gun Group (3 men)
-MG Gunner - MG
-Loader/Spotter - Assault Rifle
-Designated Marksman - DMR
-Spotter - Battle rifle (Optional)

[Fordorsia]

Beno where are you we miss you

[NeuPolska]

IDT 11: Manokan Edition

[Morrdh]

Well a bullpup rifle is smaller and more compact, and if the soldiers are already used to it, it would be ideal to retain it's use, switching to the 5.56mm in your EM-2 or some sort of EM-2 like gun. However you could just improve the .280 british round. The 5.56mm is not really an ideal cartridge, and is heavier than it needs to be for it's power, with lighter cartridges being available even at the time of it's inception. It was a wartime development rushed to the field without much oversight, largely pushed by a single man, Robert McNamera, who didn't know much about guns and was responsible for a lot of weird things, like lying about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It is a very popular cartridge, but is far from ideal for many reasons. It's also worth noting that few other countries in the world adopted the 5.45mm cartridge as it's main rifle cartridge except for Russia. The 5.56mm is not bad, but I don't think it's really necessary to switch to over the .280 British, save for perhaps the advantage of lighter weight ammunition, of which an aluminum .280 british round kind of fixes. In the end though, 10 pounds of ammunition vs. 15 pounds of ammunition only adds 5 pounds to the already ridiculously high 80+ pounds the average soldier carries, so my guess is it's sort of an overblown issue aside from use with heavy machine gunners or extremely lightweight ammo. The velocity advantage is only useful within the first 100-200 yards, when it is immediately lost given the poor aerodynamics of the smaller rounds. That high velocity is not maintained out to long range.

So just stick with a gradually updated EM-2 and go for an improved .280 British with aluminium casing?

As for squad loadout and fireteams I could just go with current British Commonwealth practice of 8 man squads split into two 4-man fireteams.

As of this year, British fireteams are going to look like this.

Team Leader - Underslung grenade launcher (though one of the privates may carry it instead).
2x Rifleman - One private was actually a Gunner with L110 LMG, but that weapon is now being phased out.
Designated Marksman - Either L86 (before it was phased out) or L129A1 sharpshooter rifle. In the other team this becomes the Section Gunner armed with GPMG.

The MG I was looking at adopting was the Taden gun, basically a belt-fed Bren gun.

EDIT: Probably should say what weapons I expect to have in service by 1960.

EM-2 - Though probably looking at replacing the optic sight, SUIT unfortunately doesn't come in until the '70s.

Taden Gun - LMG

.280 FN FAL/L1A1 SLR - Semi-automatic, scoped version as DMR and unscoped version as reserve/'milita' rifle.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Meanwhile in Ostmark:
Sec L - StG 77

MG - MG 42/74
MG Ass - StG 77
Spotter - StG 77

SL - StG 77 w/ 40 mm
LMG - LMG 77
StG 77
StG 77

SL - StG 77 w/ 40 mm
LMG - LMG 77
StG 77
StG 77

[The Akasha Colony]

The MG ammo is going to be in belts, though regardless it is probably going to be issue whilst the cartridge and weapon is in service.

All it takes is a few privates to decide to pull some cartridges out of the belts and put them in their rifles because they've heard they're "more powerful" and they figure that as strapping young lads they can handle the recoil.

It also defeats the whole point of a "general purpose cartridge" if you now in effect have two different cartridges. You are better off just making rifle-optimized and MG-optimized cartridges from the start rather than trying to keep the same cartridge with different loads in service.

Though with the switch to 5.56, what do I do for squad MG and DMR?

Ideally, develop a round for this use.

So just stick with a gradually updated EM-2 and go for an improved .280 British with aluminium casing?

I wouldn't pay much attention to Manokan. Being long-winded does not make him correct.

[Morrdh]

The MG ammo is going to be in belts, though regardless it is probably going to be issue whilst the cartridge and weapon is in service.

All it takes is a few privates to decide to pull some cartridges out of the belts and put them in their rifles because they've heard they're "more powerful" and they figure that as strapping young lads they can handle the recoil.

It also defeats the whole point of a "general purpose cartridge" if you now in effect have two different cartridges. You are better off just making rifle-optimized and MG-optimized cartridges from the start rather than trying to keep the same cartridge with different loads in service.

Though with the switch to 5.56, what do I do for squad MG and DMR?

Ideally, develop a round for this use.

So just stick with a gradually updated EM-2 and go for an improved .280 British with aluminium casing?

I wouldn't pay much attention to Manokan. Being long-winded does not make him correct.

Would it be better to keep the .280 round for MGs, etc and use the smaller .270 British round for the rifle? Or .280 as the rifle round and .280/30 for MGs?

Post-switch over to 5.56 (probably going to go do a AK 47 to AK 74 style course of action), what round for MGs and the like?

[Purpelia]

Just do what I did in WW2 and issue two loads of the same cartridge and train the troops not to use full auto if they have to fall back on the heavier stuff.

[Morrdh]

Just do what I did in WW2 and issue two loads of the same cartridge and train the troops not to use full auto if they have to fall back on the heavier stuff.

I'm considering using the .270 British round for the assault rifle since its optimised more towards shorter ranges and then the .280 for MGs and the like.

Then upgraded and rechamber the EM-2 design for 5.56 NATO in the 70s/80s, perhaps replace the .280 with 7.62 NATO.