Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Manokan Republic]

On a moderately related topic, about how long would it take a military to transition it's 7.62 NATO firearms to 6.5 Creedmoor? I'd assume most 7.62 NATO weapons would be a relatively easy conversion and it wouldn't necessitate buying new firearms.

It would depend on the finances and the gun design; in theory it's just a bolt and barrel change, and the bolt doesn't need to be changed much, in practice replacing the barrel in some guns is as about as difficult as rebuilding a whole new gun from scratch, so it may be worth it just to replace your old firearms completely, which would be more expensive. Switching from 7.62mm NATO to 6.5mm Creedmoor depends a lot on numbers, your nation's finances, the end goal and so on and so forth.

But in theory replacing infantry weapon's is not very expensive. The entirety of the 8 million M16's produced for military purposes, not all of which went to the U.S., with inflation, is at most like 12 billion dollars, which given the size of most military budget's, is not much. To outfit a million soldiers with new 6.5mm rifles would be like 1-2 billion dollars, with the only issue being mass produced ammunition and/or using up old stockpiles, such as on older vehicles, with the U.S. military using .30-06 machine guns on their tanks well in to Vietnam for this reason. So, if it's just for infantry (and to slowly phase out emplaced machine guns as well), it wouldn't be very expensive or hard to do, especially if you are basically buying a new gun that is slightly different from the old one, the manual of arms is the same, there is a high degree of compatibility of parts and training and so on. Basically, replacing old infantry weapons is not very expensive, and if they are similiar to your old one's, it's even easier to do. But the basic gist of it is to expect to need to buy whole new guns, as the compatibility makes the logistics of it far easier, and some guns will be able to convert between the two rounds, but given the difficult likely will require whole new guns. Machine guns would be the best thing to convert to a new caliber, as it's basically just a barrel change, and most machine guns have very expensive receivers (6000+ dollars) and quick-detachable barrels anyways, making the switch rather easy. Some machine guns are in the 10'so of thousands of dollars, with a new barrel only being a few hundred, so it may make sense to swap out the barrels on machine guns and just buy whole new rifles. Barrels are often half the price of rifles or more, so a replaceable barrel sounds great first, until you realize it may just be better to buy a whole new gun from scratch, especially since it's very difficult to replace barrels on many guns.

[Dayganistan]

On a moderately related topic, about how long would it take a military to transition it's 7.62 NATO firearms to 6.5 Creedmoor? I'd assume most 7.62 NATO weapons would be a relatively easy conversion and it wouldn't necessitate buying new firearms.

It would depend on the finances and the gun design; in theory it's just a bolt and barrel change, and the bolt doesn't need to be changed much, in practice replacing the barrel in some guns is as about as difficult as rebuilding a whole new gun from scratch, so it may be worth it just to replace your old firearms completely, which would be more expensive. Switching from 7.62mm NATO to 6.5mm Creedmoor depends a lot on numbers, your nation's finances, the end goal and so on and so forth.

But in theory replacing infantry weapon's is not very expensive. The entirety of the 8 million M16's produced for military purposes, not all of which went to the U.S., with inflation, is at most like 12 billion dollars, which given the size of most military budget's, is not much. To outfit a million soldiers with new 6.5mm rifles would be like 1-2 billion dollars, with the only issue being mass produced ammunition and/or using up old stockpiles, such as on older vehicles, with the U.S. military using .30-06 machine guns on their tanks well in to Vietnam for this reason. So, if it's just for infantry, to slowly phase out emplaced machine guns as well, it wouldn't be very expensive or hard to do, especially if you are basically buying a new gun that is slightly different from the old one, the manual of arms is the same, there is a high degree of compatibility of parts and training and so on.

Alright. I'd imagine switching the MG3 to 6.5 Creedmoor would be a relatively easy process since it's already a design converted from 8mm Mauser. My legacy .308 rifles being maintained in active forces as DMRs (FALs or G3s, haven't properly decided yet) would probably be a harder conversion and the better option would be replacing them with a 6.5 Creedmoor AR-10 for that purpose. I'm not looking for 6.5 Creedmoor to be a general purpose service cartridge however, I think modern 5.56 loads are fine for assault rifles and SAWs although the 6.5 Creedmoor variant of the Mk. 48 proposed for USSOCOM could probably be a viable option there.

[Manokan Republic]

It would depend on the finances and the gun design; in theory it's just a bolt and barrel change, and the bolt doesn't need to be changed much, in practice replacing the barrel in some guns is as about as difficult as rebuilding a whole new gun from scratch, so it may be worth it just to replace your old firearms completely, which would be more expensive. Switching from 7.62mm NATO to 6.5mm Creedmoor depends a lot on numbers, your nation's finances, the end goal and so on and so forth.

But in theory replacing infantry weapon's is not very expensive. The entirety of the 8 million M16's produced for military purposes, not all of which went to the U.S., with inflation, is at most like 12 billion dollars, which given the size of most military budget's, is not much. To outfit a million soldiers with new 6.5mm rifles would be like 1-2 billion dollars, with the only issue being mass produced ammunition and/or using up old stockpiles, such as on older vehicles, with the U.S. military using .30-06 machine guns on their tanks well in to Vietnam for this reason. So, if it's just for infantry, to slowly phase out emplaced machine guns as well, it wouldn't be very expensive or hard to do, especially if you are basically buying a new gun that is slightly different from the old one, the manual of arms is the same, there is a high degree of compatibility of parts and training and so on.

Alright. I'd imagine switching the MG3 to 6.5 Creedmoor would be a relatively easy process since it's already a design converted from 8mm Mauser. My legacy .308 rifles being maintained in active forces as DMRs (FALs or G3s, haven't properly decided yet) would probably be a harder conversion and the better option would be replacing them with a 6.5 Creedmoor AR-10 for that purpose. I'm not looking for 6.5 Creedmoor to be a general purpose service cartridge however, I think modern 5.56 loads are fine for assault rifles and SAWs although the 6.5 Creedmoor variant of the Mk. 48 proposed for USSOCOM could probably be a viable option there.

Basically machine guns need a new barrel, rifles are best to replace it with a whole new gun. The compatibility of parts would make repairs and cleaning easy, and you could use the same magazines, so it would make conversions relatively easy to do. It's basically just new fancy ammunition. When the U.S. military switched from 55 grain ammunition to 62 grain, the older rifle twists of the M16's couldn't even stabilize the heavier rounds, and so they had to completely replace the guns, despite still being 5.56mm. It's not that crazy to basically do an early upgrade and swap over to a new gun with new ammunition.

More aerodynamic bullets do well in machine guns as it gives them a much longer range, and given their size, weight and stability, machine guns are better for accurate fire than many other comparative guns, making a hybrid marksmen/machine gun rifle a good idea. The reduced recoil of the 6.5mm combined with it's longer range and accuracy are all advantages, but it also is helpful for hitting targets at long range, and accurate fire has always been more useful for suppression in general. In practice a lot of machine guns end up like fast firing marksmen weapons, so it's not surprising they want to put 6.5mm creedmoor in there.

[Purpelia]

Another thing to consider in this situation is that unless you are for some reason replacing completely new guns most of your old stuff will be worn out and used up to some extent. So there is an additional benefit to buying new guns as opposed to converting old ones.

[Cisairse]

For the love of Amaterasu LEARN TO EDIT.

dead link

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Do cultures where glory (based on feats of courage) is emphasised produce better infantrymen?
In Sharifistan infantrymen disproportionately come from Pashtun-areas .

[Purpelia]

Do cultures where glory (based on feats of courage) is emphasised produce better infantrymen?
In Sharifistan infantrymen disproportionately come from Pashtun-areas .

You would be surprised how little "better" or "worse" matters when someone is dropping artillery on your head.

[Austrasien]

Do cultures where glory (based on feats of courage) is emphasised produce better infantrymen?
In Sharifistan infantrymen disproportionately come from Pashtun-areas .

No. There is a strong association between aristocratic/honour culture and riding a horse into battle.

[Dothrakia]

Do cultures where glory (based on feats of courage) is emphasised produce better infantrymen?
In Sharifistan infantrymen disproportionately come from Pashtun-areas .

nuance
being from a specific region/culture doesn't make you a better warrior HOWEVER it can give you specific skills that could make you a better scout/marksman/code breaker/survivalist
not knowing a whole lot about Pashtun culture you'd have to say theres something specific about the area/people that makes them want to be soldiers

[Kassaran]

Oh, that's disconcerting. Anyways, looking at infantry and having been playing a shite-ton of ARMA 3 recently, something that's been on my mind is the US Army's emphasis on creating a breed of NCO more intelligent and adaptable to multiple situations and scenarios than anything really thought about before. I've realized that once you make NCO in the US Army, or pretty much any branch of the US Armed Forces, you're kind of on the career track and if you run through it quickly enough, you benefit from actually surpassing most of your own peers by lightyears within the span of a normal contract. Is this something that carries over into multiple country's militaries as this seems to be the sort of force you want in an all-volunteer Army? Are junior enlisted really just the stand-in for the age-old conscript, but they just do it willingly, believing they're getting off better for it?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Oh, that's disconcerting. Anyways, looking at infantry and having been playing a shite-ton of ARMA 3 recently, something that's been on my mind is the US Army's emphasis on creating a breed of NCO more intelligent and adaptable to multiple situations and scenarios than anything really thought about before. I've realized that once you make NCO in the US Army, or pretty much any branch of the US Armed Forces, you're kind of on the career track and if you run through it quickly enough, you benefit from actually surpassing most of your own peers by lightyears within the span of a normal contract. Is this something that carries over into multiple countries militaries as this seems to be the sort of force you want in an all-volunteer Army? Are junior enlisted really just the stand-in for the age-old conscript, but they just do it willingly, believing they're getting off better for it?

So the NCO has been the backbone of any army for centuries. Generally speaking, whether it is an army of conscripts from the 1700s or an army of citizen volunteers in the 2000s, the vast majority of young soldiers, your junior enlisted, will do their time and move on. The soldiers who make NCO have generally been career soldiers. There is a saying in the Armed Forces that a good officer is an officer that listens to his Sergeant. In my reserve unit, Platoon leaders are always reminded by the commander and the XO to look to the platoon sergeants, since they have years of experience and know the ins and outs of the Army. As a result, since the dawn of standing armies, it has been the Non-Commissioned Officer that has been responsible for the training of the troops, ensuring that the enlisted men know what their doing and, as some NCOs point out, ensuring that Junior Officers know which direction north is and how to wipe their bottoms.

So, to finally answer your question after that probably very unhelpful blob of likely illegible text, yes. Most militaries around the world will have a highly professional NCO corps comprised of career soldiers, be they reliant on volunteers or conscripts. If you want your military to function and remain combat capable, then you need your NCOs to be experienced and trained professionals, which naturally lends itself to promoting careerists.

[Kassaran]

So the NCO has been the backbone of any army for centuries. Generally speaking, whether it is an army of conscripts from the 1700s or an army of citizen volunteers in the 2000s, the vast majority of young soldiers, your junior enlisted, will do their time and move on. The soldiers who make NCO have generally been career soldiers. There is a saying in the Armed Forces that a good officer is an officer that listens to his Sergeant. In my reserve unit, Platoon leaders are always reminded by the commander and the XO to look to the platoon sergeants, since they have years of experience and know the ins and outs of the Army. As a result, since the dawn of standing armies, it has been the Non-Commissioned Officer that has been responsible for the training of the troops, ensuring that the enlisted men know what their doing and, as some NCOs point out, ensuring that Junior Officers know which direction north is and how to wipe their bottoms.

So, to finally answer your question after that probably very unhelpful blob of likely illegible text, yes. Most militaries around the world will have a highly professional NCO corps comprised of career soldiers, be they reliant on volunteers or conscripts. If you want your military to function and remain combat capable, then you need your NCOs to be experienced and trained professionals, which naturally lends itself to promoting careerists.

Oh, it's not an illegible blob of text to me. I'm Active component and have been for... four years in four days. That just moreover read like the pamphlet they hand us from retention NCO's trying to keep their senior specialists from leaving at the end of their contract. I'm honestly looking at going career, but just suffer from pretty chronic imposter syndrome, which isn't helped by the fact that I do, in fact, tend to be a bit more mentally present than my squadmates. They're generally better versed in more physical aspects of soldiering though, but I know for a fact I'm one of the few junior enlisted in my company, if not battalion that regularly can speak freely between NCO's, officers, and junior enlisted with little fear of reprisal.

Spent my time in an HQ element, had a few leadership positions, and now just keep slumping points in my MOS to keep from getting promoted too quickly. My major concern just comes from promoting too fast and getting kicked when I can't keep momentum because the Army is a big boi. Not really too big of a concern though when I plan to go green-to-gold in a decade or so, but that's just how it is regardless.

[Fordorsia]

Modern rank organizations can trace their lineage back to even before the introduction of the manipular Roman legion of 315 BC. Without looking it up the oldest army I can remember that used a recognizable variant of what we use today is the Macedonian army after Philip II's reforms in 359 BC. A row of a dozen men being commanded by a junior NCO, with a couple dozen give or take of these groups making up a pike block. And naturally they had senior NCOs in the front and back for keeping the formation together and relaying orders.

NCOs truly are the thick creamy glue that keeps an army together. With their extensive practical experience and leadership skills they personally direct and lead those under their command, while being the very important go between for the rank and file and officers.
No doubt Phillip II didn't just pull these ideas out of his own ass, and were almost certainly already a thing in the older Macedonian army, because that's just how armies work. They are much older than this and have been a staple of, I'm confident in saying this, literally every halfway serious army since.

Poor NCOs from before the 18th century really do not get the attention they deserve. Combat in the Middle Ages was apparently just huge mobs of people running at each other when a single guy on a horse yells charge.

[Austrasien]

Oh, that's disconcerting. Anyways, looking at infantry and having been playing a shite-ton of ARMA 3 recently, something that's been on my mind is the US Army's emphasis on creating a breed of NCO more intelligent and adaptable to multiple situations and scenarios than anything really thought about before. I've realized that once you make NCO in the US Army, or pretty much any branch of the US Armed Forces, you're kind of on the career track and if you run through it quickly enough, you benefit from actually surpassing most of your own peers by lightyears within the span of a normal contract. Is this something that carries over into multiple country's militaries as this seems to be the sort of force you want in an all-volunteer Army? Are junior enlisted really just the stand-in for the age-old conscript, but they just do it willingly, believing they're getting off better for it?

It seems more like an Americanization of the age-old concept of picked men tbqh.

[Triplebaconation]

Full write-up.



Note: The following is for general information purposes only. Users should consult the latest patch notes before ego download.

Shown here is Interface Agent Yuki Hassan equipped with a Valkryie 8.3 combat skin, light bodyglove, and 5/20mm Mass Combat Weapon.

The Valkryie 8.3 is a third-generation gynomorph combat skin currently in service with Interface threat response teams. Unlike previous models which relied on relatively crude cybernetics for enhanced capabilities, third-generation skins are masterpieces of nano-assisted biological engineering.

Each Valkryie consists of human-derived organic material printed around a carbyne skeleton. Embedded within this skeleton is a distributed tactical microframe and broadband antenna array capable of supporting ego package management, communications, and electronic warfare functions. Major nerves are augmented by redundant optical databusses, and even severed body parts can be controlled wirelessly for short periods. The cardiopulmonary and gastrointestinal systems are considerably more efficient than human baseline, while the endocrine, renal, and hepatic systems have been replaced by homogenized multipurpose tissue that fills much of the body cavity, allowing for a great deal of damage tolerance and conscious control over autonomic functions. Visual acuity is extended into the near-infrared and a double lens provides limited telescopic vision. Auditory perception is roughly comparable to a pre-Collapse canine.

The light bodyglove is considered appropriate for low- to medium-risk situations, but may be worn under heavier exoskeletons if necessary. Constructed of multiple layers of chromatophore-impregnated biomimetic spider silk proteins, the body glove gives the wearer significant ballistic protection and quick-response adaptive coloration. The suit is capable of limited self-healing and first aid for the wearer. Smart adhesive patches on various locations are available for easy carriage of extra equipment, including hives for microbot swarms. (A typical loadout includes medical, reconnaissance, and "terminator" close-combat swarms.)

With both kinetic and multipurpose modules, the MCW is a reliable and flexible weapons system. The fully-automatic kinetic module fires 5mm caseless ammunition at a variable rate from 50-round magazines. Each 5mm projectile is laser-guided and steered by micromechanical actuators in the nose for accurate and effective fire at up to a kilometer regardless of atmospheric conditions. The 20mm multipurpose module fires a variety of guided micromissiles, ranging from standard smart-fused HEMP to self-forging flechette and even loitering surveillance drone stacks. Magazine capacity is five rounds. Both modules are capable of indirect fire when cued by offboard sensors.

The Valkryie has three general combat modes with scaled lethality: Manual, semi-automatic, and automatic. In manual mode the user maintains conscious control of the combat skin throughout the engagement. In semi-automatic mode, the Valkryie will engage designated targets with any available weapons, close-combat techniques, and microbot swarms when given user permission. In automatic mode the combat skin will neutralize any apparent threats by any means necessary, allowing the user to engage in other mental tasks. By default, the Valkryie will also override operator control to evade incoming threats that may escape notice by the conscious mind.

[Gallia-]

The virgin I didn't ask for this vs the chad pit organ Wattsbottrooper.

[Purpelia]

Would a blank (full powder load but no bullet) handgun cartridge be a good ignition mechanism for a WW2 era flamethrower? Possibly loaded with some fuel other than smokeless powder that burns slower but like using a standard primer, case and magazine for a pistol like reload. Bonus points if I can use actual black powder.

[Triplebaconation]

This was common.

Blackpowder doesn't burn hot enough.

[Cisairse]

Would it be unreasonable/non-feasible to, using some combination of modern powder, spitzer bullets, or other engineering hacks, get a 7.62×25mm Tokarev configuration that defeats III/IIIA armor?

[Purpelia]

This was common.

Blackpowder doesn't burn hot enough.

What about smokeless? I assume it burns too quickly.

[Crookfur]

From what I can see on the british ignition cartridges had a bit of priming powder mixed with a pyrotechnic load of magnesium and sodium nitrate.

https://sites.google.com/site/britmilammo/no-1-igniter

Big pdf of pyrotechnic composotions can be found if you Google sr 580 propellant and look for the pdf file from ammunitionpages.

[Purpelia]

I know that people primarily used flaregun type stuff. But like I am looking for a way to use a bullet on the grounds that it would be cool and unusual.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

I've heard that weapons like the VHMG, XM307, or ASP-30 could be used to fill the role of both a heavy machine gun and automatic grenade launcher. Is this a feasible scheme? I've heard that programmable munitions and dual feed could make them more effective as dual role weapons, and it seems that having one weapon replace two could be helpful.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Did the Ottomans (or any other Islamic regime) use Irish mercenaries?

[Crookfur]

Did the Ottomans (or any other Islamic regime) use Irish mercenaries?

Nope.

They might have picked the odd deserter or stragglers from regiments serving in the austian or russian armies but there were no formal units raised.

The Wild geese tended to prefer to fight for Catholic nations and the ottomans never really had enough pull with the english crown to be allowed to recruit in Ireland, not that they really took part in the whole mercenary regiment raising game that went on in Europe.

Yes there are legends of Irish fighting men serving just about everyone of any import from classical times onwards but most of that is likely bollocks and during the rise of the ottoman empire the Irish were mostly fighting themselves and the english (or hiring Scots to do it).

You likely would find irishmen as galley crew/slaves of the various North African/barbery groups as they did raid as far north as Ireland during tudor times.