Purpelia wrote: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.
AP +P slow burning rifle powder vs FMJ slow burning pistol powder?
Advertisement
by Danternoust » Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:30 pm
Purpelia wrote: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.
by Purpelia » Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:31 pm
by Taihei Tengoku » Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:40 pm
Morrdh wrote:Purpelia wrote: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.
by Taihei Tengoku » Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:43 pm
by Morrdh » Tue Feb 26, 2019 4:47 pm
Taihei Tengoku wrote:Morrdh wrote:
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.
I don't think there is a need for two cartridges so similar to be adopted. One is 90% optimal for the rifle and 85% optimal for the machine gun, and the other 85/90%. If you have the GPC it have the inertia to beat out other systems. If you have an Afghanistan there will be an impetus to adopt a magnum rifle, if you have a tunnel rat war perhaps a microcaliber bullet hose.
by Manokan Republic » Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:27 pm
Morrdh wrote:Manokan Republic wrote: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.
by Manokan Republic » Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:38 pm
Taihei Tengoku wrote:TT:
13x IAR
by Manokan Republic » Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:50 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:
I wouldn't pay much attention to Manokan. Being long-winded does not make him correct.
by The Akasha Colony » Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:01 pm
Morrdh wrote: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?
Morrdh wrote:In that case, original British .280 "Optimum" round for the rifle and the slightly larger .280/30 rounds for MGs.
by Morrdh » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:01 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Morrdh wrote: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?
The current trend toward keeping existing calibers almost at any cost is a relatively recent phenomenon; nations used to switch cartridges more often as it suited them but one of the downsides of standardization is that it creates strong barriers to cartridge changes even when the merits of a new and improved caliber may warrant a switch. Now a nation that is thinking of adopting a new cartridge has to weigh the potential costs of either breaking standardization with its allies or mounting a sustained campaign to get everyone else to switch as well.Morrdh wrote:In that case, original British .280 "Optimum" round for the rifle and the slightly larger .280/30 rounds for MGs.
This is an even more minute difference though so it's not really worth pursuing. Just use .280. I'm not entirely sure why you are so set on having a separate round for MG use.
by Taihei Tengoku » Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:24 am
Morrdh wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:
The current trend toward keeping existing calibers almost at any cost is a relatively recent phenomenon; nations used to switch cartridges more often as it suited them but one of the downsides of standardization is that it creates strong barriers to cartridge changes even when the merits of a new and improved caliber may warrant a switch. Now a nation that is thinking of adopting a new cartridge has to weigh the potential costs of either breaking standardization with its allies or mounting a sustained campaign to get everyone else to switch as well.
This is an even more minute difference though so it's not really worth pursuing. Just use .280. I'm not entirely sure why you are so set on having a separate round for MG use.
OK, the original .280 'Optimum' as the basis it is.
The .280/30 version appears to suffer from recoil on automatic fire as shown by Forgotten Weapons.
Do I bother with switching calibres later on or not then?
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:33 am
Morrdh wrote:OK, the original .280 'Optimum' as the basis it is.
The .280/30 version appears to suffer from recoil on automatic fire as shown by Forgotten Weapons.
Do I bother with switching calibres later on or not then?
by Morrdh » Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:56 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Morrdh wrote:OK, the original .280 'Optimum' as the basis it is.
The .280/30 version appears to suffer from recoil on automatic fire as shown by Forgotten Weapons.
Then why bother with it in the first place?
If the whole point is to introduce a GPC, then separating distinct ammunition types for different uses runs counter to this purpose. Especially if the differences are so minor.Do I bother with switching calibres later on or not then?
There is no natural law that sets in stone "Thou shalt switch to SCHV in the 1970s!"
But all the major powers did. And the performance of an SCHV cartridge is not something that .280 can be "evolved" to possess.
by Taihei Tengoku » Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:58 am
by Manokan Republic » Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:04 pm
Morrdh wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:
Then why bother with it in the first place?
If the whole point is to introduce a GPC, then separating distinct ammunition types for different uses runs counter to this purpose. Especially if the differences are so minor.
There is no natural law that sets in stone "Thou shalt switch to SCHV in the 1970s!"
But all the major powers did. And the performance of an SCHV cartridge is not something that .280 can be "evolved" to possess.
Hence why I'm going to go for the .280 Optimum round, its lower recoil makes it more suitable for automatic fire.
I'm thinking a 30 year lifespan for the .280, so probably early 80s when the switch happens. Probably will introduce the 7.62mm NATO for MGs and the like as its a heavier round.
Looking at a redesigned and rechambered EM-2 with SUSAT sight when the switch happens, but looking at different optics for the earlier version of the rifle. The original optic had issues with grit getting in under the cover, so its likely that it will be replaced by the 1960s. The SUIT sight doesn't look like it comes in until the '70s, though I did find this picture.
by Republic of Penguinian Astronautia » Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:41 pm
by Manokan Republic » Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:31 pm
Republic of Penguinian Astronautia wrote:The EM-3 would incorporate trendy things, like polymers, 30-round mag, and SPIW three round grenade launcher.
by Morrdh » Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:19 am
Manokan Republic wrote:Republic of Penguinian Astronautia wrote:The EM-3 would incorporate trendy things, like polymers, 30-round mag, and SPIW three round grenade launcher.
The XL60 looks like it could be an improved EM-2, although it's rather small and fired the 4.8mm in real life. There's a lot of cool pictures out there xD
http://armamentresearch.com/wp-content/ ... 06/7WM.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/00/76 ... c7c79b.jpg
by Republic of Penguinian Astronautia » Sat Mar 02, 2019 6:15 am
by Manokan Republic » Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:35 am
Morrdh wrote:Manokan Republic wrote:The XL60 looks like it could be an improved EM-2, although it's rather small and fired the 4.8mm in real life. There's a lot of cool pictures out there xD
http://armamentresearch.com/wp-content/ ... 06/7WM.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/00/76 ... c7c79b.jpg
The XL60 series is what I imagined the EM-2 looking like from the 1960s onwards, least thats how I envision it for the write-up I'm doing.
by Fordorsia » Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:25 am
San-Silvacian wrote:Forgot to take off my Rhodie shorts when I went to sleep.
Woke up in bitches and enemy combatants.
Crookfur wrote:Speak for yourself, Crookfur infantry enjoy the sheer uber high speed low drag operator nature of their tactical woad
Spreewerke wrote:One of our employees ate a raw kidney and a raw liver and the only powers he gained was the ability to summon a massive hospital bill.
Premislyd wrote:This is probably the best thing somebody has ever spammed.
Puzikas wrote:That joke was so dark it has to smile to be seen at night.
by Republic of Penguinian Astronautia » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:30 am
by Purpelia » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:37 am
Republic of Penguinian Astronautia wrote:I have noticed by watching the banter on threads such as these that novice players make their militaries powerful by having ridiculous amounts of stuff, say, an Australia sized country with 50 Ford carriers. My MT/PMT nation decided to take an alternate approach: designing equipment with the most over the top, awesome, cool, ridiculous, and overrated/hyped features.
To start of, the standard infantry weapon: Polymer construction, ergonomic, thumb hole grip, OICW style. Fires electronically ignited caseless telescoped rectangular 7mm General Purpose cartridges, with lead free steel cored low drake rounds, with 3-piece fragmenting copper jacket.4-1 ball tracer mix, with semi incendiary, dark ignition tracer rounds. Feeds from HK73-style linkless belt box, 150 rounds. Looks like an F2000. The Chemical energy module is a top-mounted 30mm gyro jet grenade launcher, feeding from a ten round drum magazine, which can be rotated to select different round types, such as mixed flechette-buckshot canister, smart fused HEDP/HEAB, thermobaric, and breaching slugs with faster burning propellant. The sighting system incorporates HMD, tracking point smart sight. The battery is housed in the grip. Modular. Bullpup. The quick-change chrome-lined barrel is integrally suppressed. With the MR-1 weapon system, every rifleman is a machine gunner, marksman, and grenadier. The MR-1. The last weapon wewill ever need.
by Republic of Penguinian Astronautia » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:52 pm
yes!Purpelia wrote:Republic of Penguinian Astronautia wrote:I have noticed by watching the banter on threads such as these that novice players make their militaries powerful by having ridiculous amounts of stuff, say, an Australia sized country with 50 Ford carriers. My MT/PMT nation decided to take an alternate approach: designing equipment with the most over the top, awesome, cool, ridiculous, and overrated/hyped features.
To start of, the standard infantry weapon: Polymer construction, ergonomic, thumb hole grip, OICW style. Fires electronically ignited caseless telescoped rectangular 7mm General Purpose cartridges, with lead free steel cored low drake rounds, with 3-piece fragmenting copper jacket.4-1 ball tracer mix, with semi incendiary, dark ignition tracer rounds. Feeds from HK73-style linkless belt box, 150 rounds. Looks like an F2000. The Chemical energy module is a top-mounted 30mm gyro jet grenade launcher, feeding from a ten round drum magazine, which can be rotated to select different round types, such as mixed flechette-buckshot canister, smart fused HEDP/HEAB, thermobaric, and breaching slugs with faster burning propellant. The sighting system incorporates HMD, tracking point smart sight. The battery is housed in the grip. Modular. Bullpup. The quick-change chrome-lined barrel is integrally suppressed. With the MR-1 weapon system, every rifleman is a machine gunner, marksman, and grenadier. The MR-1. The last weapon wewill ever need.
Can I interest you in a landship destroyer that fires atomic shaped charge tipped cruise missiles as the equivalent of a torpedo boat to hunt landships?
by Morrdh » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:58 pm
Manokan Republic wrote:Morrdh wrote:
The XL60 series is what I imagined the EM-2 looking like from the 1960s onwards, least thats how I envision it for the write-up I'm doing.
Awesome!
It does look cool and it's sad the .280 british never took off, it could have changed the whole world of guns man. A bullpup aerodynamic gun back in 1948? Dayum.
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Great Nortend, Hintuwan, Reprapburg
Advertisement