Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Manokan Republic]

Surprisingly, Wikipedia is wrong. The only BARs that got close to 13 pounds empty was Major Smith's jungle BAR and Clyde Barrow's scatterguns, which were practically useless. The Colt Monitor was slightly heavier than the original.

The doctrinal difference between a WW1 automatic rifle and a later LMG is the automatic rifle was a platoon weapon and the LMG was a squad or section weapon. There are no real technical differences.

Trust
A grumpy old man on the internet

Vrs
A reasonably reliable and quick source for info

This sums up quite a bit about the conflicts in this forum lol

[Manokan Republic]

Suace: "In 1932, a much shorter version of the M1918 BAR designed for 'bush warfare' was made by USMC Major H.L. Smith. Captain Merritt A. Edson wrote a report on this rifle. Edson was the Ordnance officer at the Quartermaster's Depot in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[11] The barrel was made nine inches shorter (229 mm), and there were some other changes as well. The changed BAR weighed 13 lb. 12 oz. and was only 34.5 inches (880 mm) long.[11] This version was more accurate than the BAR when firing automatically and while lying down, it was less accurate when fired from the shoulder. It was also very loud.[12] Though the report written by Edson said that six of the 'jungle' BARs should be built for testing, no more work was done on the project."

Going by the same source, it also says this. This is a version of the colt monitor, essentially, but the average colt monitor was much bigger. The way it's written or portrayed is probably what leads to the confusion. So essentially both are true, there is more than one type of colt monitor. It is fair to say however, that the average colt monitor was not this weight.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Surprisingly, Wikipedia is wrong. The only BARs that got close to 13 pounds empty was Major Smith's jungle BAR and Clyde Barrow's scatterguns, which were practically useless. The Colt Monitor was slightly heavier than the original.

The doctrinal difference between a WW1 automatic rifle and a later LMG is the automatic rifle was a platoon weapon and the LMG was a squad or section weapon. There are no real technical differences.

Trust
A grumpy old man on the internet

Vrs
A reasonably reliable and quick source for info

:?: :?: :?:

Weighing 16 lb 3 oz (7.34 kg) empty, the Monitor had a rate of fire of approximately 500 rpm.[14]

What if Wikipedia contradicts itself in the very same article?
*thonkle*

[Manokan Republic]

All of this however still reinforces my idea that bullpups are objectively better. The BAR could shave off an easy 9-10 inches just by removing the stock and moving the hand-guard forward, rather than cutting down the barrel so short. It would be easier to maneuver as weight that is closer to the body is easy to hold (you might imagine it's easier to hold a 20 pound weight to your side instead of sticking straight out in front of you), and to hold up for long periods of time given that the weight would be more rearwards and both hands would be forwards. A pistol grip and forward grip also would make it easier to hold on to and control in rapid fire.

To be fair, a buffer/part of the action in the BAR extends in to the stock but it could probably be rearranged in such a way to avoid this, or just removed entirely. With something like the M1 carbine or garand this becomes more obvious. The most obvious one is the stoner 63, which was often carried without the stock entirely. Just moving the pistol grip forwards would change the balance of the weapon, without really changing anything fundamental to the design, and without a need for something like a 10 inch barrel. It makes me wonder why so few gun were made bullpup, likely just due to the slightly more complex design needed to move forward the trigger, or just a general resistance to anything new we often see among gun designers and the general community.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Do illiterates make bad infantrymen?

[Fordorsia]

Do illiterates make bad infantrymen?

Depends on when you're asking about and what you expect out of them.

[Spirit of Hope]

Do illiterates make bad infantrymen?

Yes, either they are illiterate because of a mental illness, which is obviously bad, or because of a lack of education, and education is an extremely good thing for infantry to have.

[Immoren]

Do illiterates make bad infantrymen?

Illiterate people should be barred from infantry service and be only appointed to roles like company clerks.

[Arkandros]

Do illiterates make bad infantrymen?

It depends on the time period. The Lefroy report of the 1860s also included a study on literacy, and found only one third of British soldiers between 1800 and 1850 were literate to any degree. That said, compared to the modern infantryman, very little was expected from a Napoleonic era soldier, and what instruction he required was easily transferred verbally. As infantry techniques and training become more complex and abstract, literacy rapidly becomes critical, both as a training tool and as an indicator of a base level of education.
In short, if your troops are pre-1800s, it's expected. Still not ideal, but workable. If your troops are 1870s/1880s and on, it's unacceptable.

[Fordorsia]

Yeah having a large number of illiterate soldiers in the late 1800s implies some very serious wider problems for the country and military.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Do noblemen make better or worse infantry officers on average?

[Post War America]

Do noblemen make better or worse infantry officers on average?

Compared to?

[Arkandros]

Do noblemen make better or worse infantry officers on average?

You really should try to do some more research on your own before just asking us. Google is your dearest friend.
Anyway, noblemen (in the traditional, medieval sense) are pretty much the only officers you'd have available before instituting gunpowder-era "professional" armies. They would, in turn, provide a retinue of lesser nobles and professional soldiers to lead levy troops, which would today be regarded as junior officers and (S)NCOs, and would form the core of the army.
As noble titles became a more honorary rather than military position, the applicable skills would obviously wane. That doesn't necessarily mean that a "modern" nobleman can't be a good officer, as they would have enough time to be drilled on the theoretical and physical parts of being an officer, but the ability to make decisions under fire and the ability to command troops is much harder, if not impossible to teach, and is often just a matter of personality. Historically, noblemen have also had a greater capacity for spectacular failure, though that may be a result of being put in charge of operations that are able to fail spectacularly when they weren't experienced enough to execute.
Overall, I'd say the average nobleman is just as good an officer candidate as any other equivalently educated common man, though (as an enlisted man) I would rather not deal with the entitled bullshit that I'm sure the noblemen would have in spades.

[Ormata]

In the context of the US Civil War, Union line infantry, would the Carolean Gå–På still have worked?

[Triplebaconation]

No

[Ormata]

No

Thank you for your most in depth answer. I am truly enlightened by your wisdom.

[Purpelia]

It's random idea time.

Reloading muzzle loading firearms whilst on horseback is difficult to impossible. But what if one was to attach a 3rd stirrup to the saddle? The idea here is that when you want to reload you brace the but of the rifle in the stirrup, hold it up with your left hand and use the right hand to reload. This should give you a firm solid way to hold the rifle as if it was braced to the ground, assuming the horse does not jiggle too much.

Y/N/Comments?

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

How much wisdom is there in "1 volunteer is worth 10 conscripts"?

[Purpelia]

How much wisdom is there in "1 volunteer is worth 10 conscripts"?

How bored must you be to come up with these?

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

How much wisdom is there in "1 volunteer is worth 10 conscripts"?

How bored must you be to come up with these?

Well I'm very bored

[Ormata]

How much wisdom is there in "1 volunteer is worth 10 conscripts"?

How bored must you be to come up with these?

Bored enough to be on NationStates I guess.

For the stirrup idea, to be honest that sounds interesting but the other issue is whether or not someone can, at a reasonable speed of riding, aim their rifle or musket properly and adequately (which is doubtful in of itself).

[Purpelia]

How bored must you be to come up with these?

Bored enough to be on NationStates I guess.

For the stirrup idea, to be honest that sounds interesting but the other issue is whether or not someone can, at a reasonable speed of riding, aim their rifle or musket properly and adequately (which is doubtful in of itself).

Did anyone ever fire when riding though? I was under the impression that you'd stop, calm the horse, fire off a volley or two and than move away before the horde of infantry with big pointy things come to stab you off our horse.
This is basically intended as an alternative to the early breech loaders such as those used in the 1850's.

[Ormata]

Bored enough to be on NationStates I guess.

For the stirrup idea, to be honest that sounds interesting but the other issue is whether or not someone can, at a reasonable speed of riding, aim their rifle or musket properly and adequately (which is doubtful in of itself).

Did anyone ever fire when riding though? I was under the impression that you'd stop, calm the horse, fire off a volley or two and than move away before the horde of infantry with big pointy things come to stab you off our horse.

I think it depends on the sort of cavalry, but honestly not informed enough.

[Post War America]

No

Thank you for your most in depth answer. I am truly enlightened by your wisdom.

No, because Ga Pa tactics were dated when they were conceived of, relied heavily on a substantial qualitative edge of the troops in question, and because muskets of the late 17th and early 18th centuries were still relatively inaccurate and slow firing (something to which I can personally attest). By the mid 19th century breechloading weapons could conceivably be common, and repeating weapons not unheard of, and rifled weapons, as a rule, are capable of much more accurate fire than muskets (this is again referring to personal experience). While the difference in fire rate between a percussion cap muzzle loading rifle musket and a flint or wheel lock musket might not be significant, the change in accuracy alone would see your men at a critical disadvantage in firepower given that you're losing a third of your rifles in exchange for pikes. This of course is made worse if your opponents were to have for example, 1859 Sharps rifles, or worse Spencer rifles.

In battle this would largely result in your troops being cut to ribbons before they could get close, and would as a result be weaker in the melee, if they made it into melee in the first place, which thus deprives your troops of the critical momentum needed to make Ga Pa work. This is what happened against the Russians in the early 18th century, who were equipped with muskets, and would be much much worse in the mid 19th where rifle muskets and rifles have become the norm.

[Ormata]

Thank you for your most in depth answer. I am truly enlightened by your wisdom.

No, because Ga Pa tactics were dated when they were conceived of, relied heavily on a substantial qualitative edge of the troops in question, and because muskets of the late 17th and early 18th centuries were still relatively inaccurate and slow firing (something to which I can personally attest). By the mid 19th century breechloading weapons could conceivably be common, and repeating weapons not unheard of, and rifled weapons, as a rule, are capable of much more accurate fire than muskets (this is again referring to personal experience). While the difference in fire rate between a percussion cap muzzle loading rifle musket and a flint or wheel lock musket might not be significant, the change in accuracy alone would see your men at a critical disadvantage in firepower given that you're losing a third of your rifles in exchange for pikes. This of course is made worse if your opponents were to have for example, 1859 Sharps rifles, or worse Spencer rifles.

In battle this would largely result in your troops being cut to ribbons before they could get close, and would as a result be weaker in the melee, if they made it into melee in the first place, which thus deprives your troops of the critical momentum needed to make Ga Pa work. This is what happened against the Russians in the early 18th century, who were equipped with muskets, and would be much much worse in the mid 19th where rifle muskets and rifles have become the norm.

Since I'm talking about the use of Ga Pa by Union troops against Confederates, somehow I doubt I'll be facing a large number of breechloading and repeating weapons. I may be wrong in thinking that most Confederates were not armed with such muskets, but hey that's just me. This said, I was under the impression that standard muskets of that period were not so accurate.

But thank you for your explanation on the reason.