Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Danternoust]

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?

[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.

AP +P slow burning rifle powder vs FMJ slow burning pistol powder?

I basically issue two versions of 7.5x55 Swiss in the 40's. The machine gun version is just plain old GP11 and the riflemen get my own GP30 that's basically a downloaded full power round along the lines of 6.5 Japanese or 6.5 Italian. So like it's sort of 7.62x39 but with the weight and bulk of a full powered round. Good for recoil AND it lets me use MG ammo in rifles and vice versa in a pinch but looses most of the advantages of an intermediary.

[Taihei Tengoku]

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.

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.

[Taihei Tengoku]

TT:
13x IAR

[Morrdh]

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.

In that case, original British .280 "Optimum" round for the rifle and the slightly larger .280/30 rounds for MGs.

[Manokan Republic]

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.

The taden is more than small enough for a single soldier to carry and use, so it can easily be used like a SAW. Like the bar, it's small enough and compact enough to be realistically carried. Ironically, at 18-20 pounds, it's around the same weight as a modern M249, although with belts of ammunition it might be a little heavier. That sounds reasonable to me

An .280 that's aluminum sounds awesome, and it would solve the only real problem with the round which is that it's a little heavier than it needs to be. As it actually is a lower pressure cartridge, I think an aluminum case would work out fine, particularly if it had a coating or the gun's bolt was made out of a material that didn't gall with it. The 5.56mm or 7.62mm NATO would be fine, it's just not necessary. The current british set-up is fine, and works well, being similiar to the U.S. army squad and capable of leapfrogging, which is important. You also get a DMR and a good machine gun, so it seems to hit all the roles a squad might need, and is pretty close to what you originally imagined. That would work great and would be unique enough to still be interesting.

The EM-2 with the .280 would work alright, even with the lower velocity. You would have as good or slightly better armor penetration as a 5.56mm while significantly better barrier penetration and stopping power. The .280 had a lot of room for improvement, as there were so many variants, which makes it good for upgrading over time. The 5.56mm has proven much harder to improve, although more aerodynamic 75-80 grain rounds and faster burning propellants are newer innovations which have added a lot. My suggestion would be to use the .280 in both a machine gun and assault rifle, so that way the bolt, barrel, magazine and the like are all the same cartridge. You can simply use a .280 with more powerful gunpowder in a designated marksmen rifle or machine gun, which allows you to retain compatibility between weapons, and have slightly enhanced power when you want it. The similarity between the .270 and .280's performance is enough to not really warrant it, an ideally you would use the same cartridge case and bullet size switching between guns is much easier that way.

[Manokan Republic]

TT:
13x IAR

Yesh

Do et


This is kind of the new marine strategy lol

In my opinion the 15 man squad is ideal, but is impractical for a few reasons including vehicle size, which is why they seem to be going with a smaller rather than larger squad. A 4 man team is more ideal for fire and maneuver and room clearing, but is small enough for a reasonably sized fireteam in a squad. However if you want three the squad increases a lot, and then if you add things like marksmen to it gets even bigger. Then you are forced to try and get a gigantic vehicle to transport them or break the squad up in to smaller pieces, and you are better off with just a smaller squad.

[Manokan Republic]

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

And yet it doesn't make me wrong, either.

But what I just said is correct, in that the military does use leap-frogging infantry units over heavy machine gun units for mobility and fear of return fire. It's not as much about how many machine guns you have in a squad but more so about how they can play off of each other, and how they implement strategies. Of course, more firepower is also never a bad thing.


To go on a semi-longed winded speech again, as for the 5.56mm, there have been projects to replace it for years, all of which got shot down for budgetary reasons rather than other rounds demonstrating inferior qualities. The .30 carbine for example produces 1400 joules, with a 7.5 gram bullet, that is 12.5 grams total, which is the same as an M4 carbine or the early 5.56mm rounds. So, if you put in a 4.1 gram bullet in the same case, it would be 9.1 grams, or 38% lighter than the 5.56mm which is about 12.5 grams. Granted the U.S. military with the M16 ended up going with the higher pressure 1800 joule variant, but there's no reason why you can't go from 38,000 PSI to 55,000 PSI with a slightly strengthened .30 carbine case. And, the M1 carbine was a mere 5.2 pounds, where as the M16 that ended up replacing it, lauded for it's light weight, had polymer instead of wood, and was, 6.6 to 7.1 pounds when it was finally introduced. The real question you've got to ask yourself is, why? The technology for a higher pressure .22 carbine cartridge existed since WWII, but the military experimented with the .22 spitfire which was really weak for some reason and never got adopted. This cartridge not only would be smaller, but also substantially lighter weight, allowing more ammunition to be carried, in a smaller gun, that would have been more or less just as reliable as the M16 if not more so, and could have been decades in advance. But it was never done; or that is, it was never mass produced. Once the M16 was chosen they stuck with it, even with the original designer came out with the well liked Stoner 63, AR-18 (of which the HK416, G36, and numerous other weapons are based on) and numerous other weapons, and there were better weapons available even at the time that could have theoretically done the same job. Pretty much all of it was kicked to the wayside due to the problems of adopting a new cartridge of gun, and instead they were stuck with an unusually long and heavy gun, that was for whatever reason touted as lightweight and small. The main reason they seem to have adopted the M16 was accuracy, that is the soldiers using it were more likely to hit their target. But as the gun is not inherently accurate and this is more or less just due to the low recoil of the gun and good ergonomics, that could theoretically be implemented in a large number of guns, and you don't need all the weird quarks like long buffer tube and poor resistance to water the M16 has.

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

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.

[Morrdh]

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.

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.

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?

[Taihei Tengoku]

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?

No. Once you have an intermediate, high-velocity spitzer round with a good powder you kind of stay there. A GPC is a "good enough" solution, and instead would gain supplements in weird niches like ultra-long-range sniper rifles or close-range personal defense weapons.

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

[Morrdh]

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.

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.

[Taihei Tengoku]

.280 can keep trucking forever. There are still large armies that stay on .308.

[Manokan Republic]

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.

You can call the upgraded weapon the EM-3 xD

Or EM-4 etc. I think the .280 is fine imo, and has a lot of room for improvement, but switching to a nato caliber can make logical sense for logistics purposes. Trying to fit in with your allies.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

The EM-3 would incorporate trendy things, like polymers, 30-round mag, and SPIW three round grenade launcher.

[Manokan Republic]

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

[Morrdh]

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

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.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

If you're really insistent on changing calibers in the seventies or eighties, go to 6x50mm saw out of a stoner 63.

[Manokan Republic]

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.

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.

[Fordorsia]

Found Purp's infantry helmet

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

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 drag 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. Gas valve can be altered for reliability and launching rounds at subsonic speeds for suppressed ops. 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.

[Purpelia]

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?

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

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?

yes!

[Morrdh]

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.

For better or for worse...

The L52 series