Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Cisairse]

the k in kalashnikov means kurchevsky

recoilless 16" akm when

This is also my question

[Purpelia]

Wasn't there an IIRC British paper design for a battleship with autoloaded 16 inch guns?

[Austrasien]

Wasn't there an IIRC British paper design for a battleship with autoloaded 16 inch guns?

Naval big guns have not been loaded by hand for a very long time.

[Purpelia]

Naval big guns have not been loaded by hand for a very long time.

Actually a lot of the work on all stages of that would have been done by hand. Shells and charges were loaded into the hoists and elevators by hand. They were unloaded by hand. Ramming was either by hand or hand triggered machine. The breach was operated manually. etc. It isn't like a tank autoloader or indeed the autoloaders on some late war cruisers where things were literally unmanned and all the crew had to do was push a button. That's why even late battleships had rather large turret crews, as much as 50-80 per turret depending on the time and ship. Here is a video of one of the most automated systems of the time on the Iowa a very late and very well automated ship. And even that had a lot of people manhandling things, a be it through clever mechanization. video

What I am talking about was a design that would have had an actual autoloader, top to bottom with little or no human intervention for the explicit purpose of having a minimal turret crew and high ROF. But I can't find the details any more. I'll have to dig them up.

[Gallia-]

The infrastructure of lifts needed to move the shell and propellant from the ammo bunker to the breech is more important than some dumb automation stuff.

The first part is hard. The second part is easy.

Because moving things in general is much harder than replacing a hand switch with a photodiode operated switch.

[Purpelia]

The infrastructure of lifts needed to move the shell and propellant from the ammo bunker to the breech is more important than some dumb automation stuff.

The first part is hard. The second part is easy.

Because moving things in general is much harder than replacing a hand switch with a photodiode operated switch.

Which is why I find the idea of a truly autoloaded gun fascinating. It's an engineering feat that I am not sure they could have pulled off at that scale. But if they did it'd been awesome.

[Gallia-]

The gun is automatically loaded.

The difference is, as you said, hand operated switches and cranks, rather than some sort of automatic trip like a light sensor. To make these computer operated is trivial. Factories do (or did) it all the time. Even back then. The reason it wasn't done was mostly for matters of maintenance, and the manpower was cheaper, but such a fully automatic system would be typical of a 1950's naval cannon.

At smaller calibers more common in naval artillery today it's easier to just pack the rounds in pallets and dump them into a ammo bunker, and have a couple guys move shells and cases between the bunker and the automatic loader. If we'd still built mega guns like the 16" into the 1960's they would have been fully automatic. Maybe even DP but that's a bit wild. The largest DP guns the USN ever built were 8".

[Purpelia]

The gun is automatically loaded.

The difference is, as you said, hand operated switches and cranks, rather than some sort of automatic trip like a light sensor. To make these computer operated is trivial. Factories do (or did) it all the time. Even back then. The reason it wasn't done was mostly for matters of maintenance, and the manpower was cheaper, but such a fully automatic system would be typical of a 1950's naval cannon.

At smaller calibers more common in naval artillery today it's easier to just pack the rounds in pallets and dump them into a ammo bunker, and have a couple guys move shells and cases between the bunker and the automatic loader. If we'd still built mega guns like the 16" into the 1960's they would have been fully automatic. Maybe even DP but that's a bit wild. The largest DP guns the USN ever built were 8".

That's the thing. They wanted to do this in the early 40's and for the explicit purpose of basically a full auto 16 inch gun. Which you have to admit would have been cool.

[Cisairse]

The gun is automatically loaded.

The difference is, as you said, hand operated switches and cranks, rather than some sort of automatic trip like a light sensor. To make these computer operated is trivial. Factories do (or did) it all the time. Even back then. The reason it wasn't done was mostly for matters of maintenance, and the manpower was cheaper, but such a fully automatic system would be typical of a 1950's naval cannon.

At smaller calibers more common in naval artillery today it's easier to just pack the rounds in pallets and dump them into a ammo bunker, and have a couple guys move shells and cases between the bunker and the automatic loader. If we'd still built mega guns like the 16" into the 1960's they would have been fully automatic. Maybe even DP but that's a bit wild. The largest DP guns the USN ever built were 8".

That's the thing. They wanted to do this in the early 40's and for the explicit purpose of basically a full auto 16 inch gun. Which you have to admit would have been cool.

That does sound pretty cool.

[Gallia-]

The gun is automatically loaded.

The difference is, as you said, hand operated switches and cranks, rather than some sort of automatic trip like a light sensor. To make these computer operated is trivial. Factories do (or did) it all the time. Even back then. The reason it wasn't done was mostly for matters of maintenance, and the manpower was cheaper, but such a fully automatic system would be typical of a 1950's naval cannon.

At smaller calibers more common in naval artillery today it's easier to just pack the rounds in pallets and dump them into a ammo bunker, and have a couple guys move shells and cases between the bunker and the automatic loader. If we'd still built mega guns like the 16" into the 1960's they would have been fully automatic. Maybe even DP but that's a bit wild. The largest DP guns the USN ever built were 8".

That's the thing. They wanted to do this in the early 40's and for the explicit purpose of basically a full auto 16 inch gun. Which you have to admit would have been cool.

Yes, as I said it would have been a gun you'd see in the 1950's, not the 1920's. The Mark 16 mount did this for the 8"/55. It was for the purpose of task force air defense because the US Navy thought it needed a 8" automatic to stop the kamikazes. Then it bought guided missiles and the Mark 16 was abandoned more or less, but Newport News still killed a lot of Vietnamese.

[Purpelia]

That's the thing. They wanted to do this in the early 40's and for the explicit purpose of basically a full auto 16 inch gun. Which you have to admit would have been cool.

Yes, as I said it would have been a gun you'd see in the 1950's, not the 1920's. The Mark 16 mount did this for the 8"/55. It was for the purpose of task force air defense because the US Navy thought it needed a 8" automatic to stop the kamikazes. Then it bought guided missiles and the Mark 16 was abandoned more or less, but Newport News still killed a lot of Vietnamese.

But in the 50's they actually have had the tech to do it right as opposed to the far more interesting thing we'd have gotten in the early 40's. For reference, I am the sort of person who finds the RSC1917 to be way more cool than say an M1 or SWT40 for the same reason.

[Gallia-]

Yes, as I said it would have been a gun you'd see in the 1950's, not the 1920's. The Mark 16 mount did this for the 8"/55. It was for the purpose of task force air defense because the US Navy thought it needed a 8" automatic to stop the kamikazes. Then it bought guided missiles and the Mark 16 was abandoned more or less, but Newport News still killed a lot of Vietnamese.

But in the 50's they actually have had the tech to do it right as opposed to the far more interesting thing we'd have gotten in the early 40's. For reference, I am the sort of person who finds the RSC1917 to be way more cool than say an M1 or SWT40 for the same reason.

The tech was the same.

The problem was there was a big ass war that sucked all the money lol.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

is there any reason at all to go to 7.62 HATO for 7.62 purposes or can i liek just carry on with .30-06/.303/6.5 Arisaka/8 mm Mauser in perpetuity?

[Gallia-]

7.62mm nato is superior to all those dumb bullets

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

7.62mm nato is superior to all those dumb bullets

ur gei

[Gallia-]

tru but dont let that distract from the fact that .308 is smoler and better than all those dumb bulits

[Cisairse]

is there any reason at all to go to 7.62 HATO for 7.62 purposes or can i liek just carry on with .30-06/.303/6.5 Arisaka/8 mm Mauser in perpetuity?

Just stick to .45–70 Gov't. If it wasn't good the military wouldn't have adopted it in the first place.

[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.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

6.5 meme gay. 7×50 go.
Edit: Wow it's phat.

[Izukyu]

is there any reason at all to go to 7.62 HATO for 7.62 purposes or can i liek just carry on with .30-06/.303/6.5 Arisaka/8 mm Mauser in perpetuity?

Just stick to .45–70 Gov't. If it wasn't good the military wouldn't have adopted it in the first place.

Plus it has a cool name. That's got to count for something.

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.

Would the advantage gained by the change in cartridge outweigh the costs of the conversion though?

[New Visayan Islands]

7.62mm nato is superior to all those dumb bullets

7.62 Tsarist wants a word.

[Austrasien]

is there any reason at all to go to 7.62 HATO for 7.62 purposes or can i liek just carry on with .30-06/.303/6.5 Arisaka/8 mm Mauser in perpetuity?

The 8mm Mauser and 6.5mm Swedish are the best choices aside from memetic zoomer rounds like the whatever-mm Creedmores. Both have really good ballistics.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

is there any reason at all to go to 7.62 HATO for 7.62 purposes or can i liek just carry on with .30-06/.303/6.5 Arisaka/8 mm Mauser in perpetuity?

The 8mm Mauser and 6.5mm Swedish are the best choices aside from memetic zoomer rounds like the whatever-mm Creedmores. Both have really good ballistics.

My original post was tbh a bit very unclear. I was asking if there was a point for all the countries in my 'verse to go to 7.62x51 for any practical reason(s)?

[Crookfur]

The 8mm Mauser and 6.5mm Swedish are the best choices aside from memetic zoomer rounds like the whatever-mm Creedmores. Both have really good ballistics.

My original post was tbh a bit very unclear. I was asking if there was a point for all the countries in my 'verse to go to 7.62x51 for any practical reason(s)?

All the same power but in package that allows lighter and handier rifles was pretty much the reason for .308win.
In all likelyhood most nations by the mid 40s to 50s face the same choice: either they split their infantry cartridges into a light intermediate "assault rifle" round and keep their existing full calibre rifle round for machine guns ie 7.92mm kurz/8mm mauser or 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54mmR or they try to make a single do it all cartridge ie .280 british (of whatever flavour) or 7.62x51mm.
A nation using 6.5mm ammo probably could make a decent all rounder by modernising and optimising a derivative of their current ammo.

[Purpelia]

The 8mm Mauser and 6.5mm Swedish are the best choices aside from memetic zoomer rounds like the whatever-mm Creedmores. Both have really good ballistics.

My original post was tbh a bit very unclear. I was asking if there was a point for all the countries in my 'verse to go to 7.62x51 for any practical reason(s)?

The greatest benefit of 7.62 OTAN was not that it's a greatly superior round to its predecessors (other than 8mm Lebel) but that it was a new common cartridge that everyone could agree on. Well america agreed on it anyway and the rest was strongarmed into it but still. Unless you have an OTAN like organization in your region or your old round sucks terribly (again like 8mm Lebel) you can just stick with your old round and loose nothing. Especially if you had something good like 6.5 Carcano.