Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

by **Triplebaconation** » Sun May 19, 2019 3:33 pm

Manokan Republic wrote:
Triplebaconation wrote:
"Contractor" doesn't mean the same thing in Russia as it does in the West. Is this what you meant by mercenaries?

The term contractor refers effectively to "mercenaries", or soldiers that work for companies instead of the government. The U.S. also employs contractors, who are effectively mercenaries, and yes they are practically the same thing. The contractors in Russia are notorious for their lack of discipline and alcohol abuse, and so in a major fight it's liable that many just won't show up, as a good chunk of the Russian army are no-shows even in things like parades and training. This is a well known fact of life in the Russian military and is rarely disputed.

Yes, this is the Western meaning. In Russia a kontraktnik is a soldier who has signed a contract specifying a number of years of voluntary service, as opposed to a conscript. By Russian standards every US soldier is a contractor.

by **Fordorsia** » Mon May 20, 2019 7:28 am

Manokan Republic wrote:a tip cut could be used to breach the armor and then you would thrust through the hole you just made

Congratulations this makes no sense

by **Fordorsia** » Mon May 27, 2019 5:33 pm

by **Mostrov** » Wed May 29, 2019 5:15 am

I imagine the reason why the Falcatta were never used en masse was because they would have been more difficult to make for not very much to gain, in terms of creating a strong (and non-brittle) tang. Aside from the Romans for a short period, the spear was always the more dominant weapon.

by **Fordorsia** » Wed May 29, 2019 6:46 am

Mostrov wrote:I imagine the reason why the Falcatta were never used en masse was because they would have been more difficult to make for not very much to gain, in terms of creating a strong (and non-brittle) tang. Aside from the Romans for a short period, the spear was always the more dominant weapon.

The falcata was the dominant sword of all of Iberia, North Africa and the very south westernmost Gaul before each were Romanized. The reason they fell out of use after Romanization is because Rome already had its sword, the gladius, which was suited completely to Roman tactics and fighting style as it was a thrust centric sword, whereas the falcata was cut centric. They had no reason to produce the falcata, they only "used" it when they hired Iberian or North African mercenaries who procured their own equipment. The falcata is probably one of the most widely used and longest lasting sword designs in ancient Europe, behind only the gladius and spatha, the three of them existing for around 600 years each.

by **Triplebaconation** » Wed May 29, 2019 10:51 am

Fordorsia wrote:
Mostrov wrote:I imagine the reason why the Falcatta were never used en masse was because they would have been more difficult to make for not very much to gain, in terms of creating a strong (and non-brittle) tang. Aside from the Romans for a short period, the spear was always the more dominant weapon.

The falcata was the dominant sword of all of Iberia, North Africa and the very south westernmost Gaul before each were Romanized. The reason they fell out of use after Romanization is because Rome already had its sword, the gladius, which was suited completely to Roman tactics and fighting style as it was a thrust centric sword, whereas the falcata was cut centric. They had no reason to produce the falcata, they only "used" it when they hired Iberian or North African mercenaries who procured their own equipment. The falcata is probably one of the most widely used and longest lasting sword designs in ancient Europe, behind only the gladius and spatha, the three of them existing for around 600 years each.

A single-edged curved sword is significantly easier to make than a straight sword, especially with primitive metalworking techniques.

The Romans adopted the gladius hispaniensis (and the sword-centered Polybian legion) after the conquest of Carthaginian Iberia. Before that they used swords of various types.

Archaeological evidences shows that curved swords were fairly common in Iberian areas but very rare amongst the Celtiberians.

by **Fordorsia** » Wed May 29, 2019 11:53 am

Triplebaconation wrote:A single-edged curved sword is significantly easier to make than a straight sword, especially with primitive metalworking techniques.

Materials have changed, techniques not so much. Forging a billet into a curved sword, particularly one with a broad flair complete with 1-3 long fullers, and a complex full tang is harder than forging a straight double edged sword with a stick tang. On top of this quenching curved blades has its own issues with it not being symmetrical, and accidentally curving incorrectly during quenching. Hammering a second bevel on the other side of a straight sword is not harder or faster than the former, and quenching it is simpler. The gladius is certainly the easier sword to produce, both in single quantities and in mass production. This production difference, on top of them sadly just being better swords overall, is why straight swords are far more common in ancient Europe. Falcata, kopis, sica, falx, etc are the minority.

The Romans adopted the gladius hispaniensis (and the sword-centered Polybian legion) after the conquest of Carthaginian Iberia. Before that they used swords of various types.

It is likely that the first gladii started production very early into the Second Punic War, not long after Cannae, and many years before Rome took control of Carthaginian Iberia, let alone all of Iberia. It was definitely not after it ended.

And they didn't really have various sword types before then, they weren't barbarians. They used one general style of leaf bladed. Functionally identical to both the xiphos and early gladius with the leaf blade, which then evolved gradually into the straight types.

by **Purpelia** » Wed May 29, 2019 12:07 pm

You do of course realize that broad body shaped blades make for good cutting implements where as good stabbing implements tend to look more like needles. Just saying.

by **Fordorsia** » Wed May 29, 2019 12:38 pm

Purpelia wrote:You do of course realize that broad body shaped blades make for good cutting implements where as good stabbing implements tend to look more like needles. Just saying.

European swords became highly tapered during the high Middle Ages because of the widespread use of mail. When the vast majority of your opponents have no armour besides a helmet, any sword design will cause significant damage with a thrust. A broad blade like the gladius will just cause even more fast acting damage thanks to more blood loss and trauma.

by **Triplebaconation** » Wed May 29, 2019 3:56 pm

Fordorsia wrote:
Triplebaconation wrote:A single-edged curved sword is significantly easier to make than a straight sword, especially with primitive metalworking techniques.

Materials have changed, techniques not so much. Forging a billet into a curved sword, particularly one with a broad flair complete with 1-3 long fullers, and a complex full tang is harder than forging a straight double edged sword with a stick tang. On top of this quenching curved blades has its own issues with it not being symmetrical, and accidentally curving incorrectly during quenching. Hammering a second bevel on the other side of a straight sword is not harder or faster than the former, and quenching it is simpler.

Hammering a single bevel naturally produces a curved blade. Straight blades are just as likely to warp as curved blades with uneven heating and inconsistent steel, and this is obviously a bigger problem for the "straight" sword.

It is likely that the first gladii started production very early into the Second Punic War, not long after Cannae, and many years before Rome took control of Carthaginian Iberia, let alone all of Iberia. It was definitely not after it ended.

Do you have a source for this? Most people think the gladius was adopted when Scipio captured Carthago Nova (whether 6 years is "many" is subjective, I suppose) and enslaved thousands of local craftsmen. Given that he equipped, retrained, and reorganized his army there this is the most likely time of adoption.

And they didn't really have various sword types before then, they weren't barbarians. They used one general style of leaf bladed. Functionally identical to both the xiphos and early gladius with the leaf blade, which then evolved gradually into the straight types.

Nobody knows! Nobody knows anything about the Roman sword before the gladius, except that it was most likely shorter. However it's somewhat safe to assume they used the same variety of weapons as everyone else in Latium.

by **Theodosiya** » Thu May 30, 2019 8:37 am

Hadn't done this for long time, soooo....

Theoretical 13 man squad

Mechanized & Armored Squad variant

All squad also supplied with Panzerfaust 3/MATADOR (Can't decide on good disposable), if necessary.

by **Gallia-** » Thu May 30, 2019 2:47 pm

Put the MG4s in the support team and make the maneuver team a single 6-man subunit.

Maybe replace the MG4s with an MG3 or something.

The mechanical squad is fine but the tank commander doesn't need an M320 nor would it probably fit in his weapon station.

by **The Manticoran Empire** » Thu May 30, 2019 3:12 pm

Theodosiya wrote:Hadn't done this for long time, soooo....

Theoretical 13 man squad

Squad Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + M320UBGL

1st & 2nd Maneuver Team

Team Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + M320UBGL
Automatic Rifleman, MG-4
2x Rifleman, HK-416A5 " 16'5

Support Team

Team Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + M320UBGL
Recoilless Rifle operator, HK-416A5 "14'5 + Carl Gustav RR, loaded + 3 munition
Assistant Recoiless Rifle operator, HK-416A5 "14'5 + 6 munition
Designated Marksman, HK-417A2 "20

The Squad Leader should be paired with an RTO to coordinate with higher.

Make Maneuver 1 and 2 into a single 7 man element. Replace the MG4 with an M27 and perhaps add a M26 as an underbarrel for the two riflemen.

Give the designated marksman a 416A5 like the rest of the squad to facilitate ammunition sharing in combat.

by **Theodosiya** » Fri May 31, 2019 5:48 am

Eh, why 1 maneuver instead of 2 team? I could do a USSR inspired one and have a MG4 oriented squad and CG oriented squad.

by **Gallia-** » Fri May 31, 2019 5:54 am

Theodosiya wrote:Eh, why 1 maneuver instead of 2 team? I could do a USSR inspired one and have a MG4 oriented squad and CG oriented squad.

Because in practice you're going to blob it into two subunits: a support team and a maneuver/assault team.

by **Theodosiya** » Fri May 31, 2019 10:18 am

Hmm, in that case...

Squad Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Team Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Designated Marksman, HK416A5 "20
Grenadier, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Automatic Rifleman, M27 IAR
3x Rifleman, HK-416A5 "16'5

Team Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Carl Gustav Operator, HK-416A5 "14'5 + M4 CG + 2 rounds
Assistant CG, HK-416A5 "14'5 + 6 rounds
Machinegunner, MG-5
Assistant MG, HK-416A5 "14'5

by **The Manticoran Empire** » Fri May 31, 2019 11:44 am

Theodosiya wrote:Hmm, in that case...

Squad Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Team Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Designated Marksman, HK416A5 "20
Grenadier, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Automatic Rifleman, M27 IAR
3x Rifleman, HK-416A5 "16'5

Team Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Carl Gustav Operator, HK-416A5 "14'5 + M4 CG + 2 rounds
Assistant CG, HK-416A5 "14'5 + 6 rounds
Machine gunner, MG-5
Assistant MG, HK-416A5 "14'5

Squad Leader needs an RTO with him to coordinate with Platoon and higher. Other than that, it will work.

by **Austria-Bohemia-Hungary** » Fri May 31, 2019 12:02 pm

Theodosiya wrote:Hmm, in that case...

Squad Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Team Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Designated Marksman, HK416A5 "20
Grenadier, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Automatic Rifleman, M27 IAR
3x Rifleman, HK-416A5 "16'5

Team Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Carl Gustav Operator, HK-416A5 "14'5 + M4 CG + 2 rounds
Assistant CG, HK-416A5 "14'5 + 6 rounds
Machinegunner, MG-5
Assistant MG, HK-416A5 "14'5

So if your HK FN MAG breaks down you have no sustained automatic fire capability? Sounds great.

by **The Manticoran Empire** » Fri May 31, 2019 12:21 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
Theodosiya wrote:Hmm, in that case...

Squad Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Team Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Designated Marksman, HK416A5 "20
Grenadier, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Automatic Rifleman, M27 IAR
3x Rifleman, HK-416A5 "16'5

Team Leader, HK-416A5 "16'5 + UBGL
Carl Gustav Operator, HK-416A5 "14'5 + M4 CG + 2 rounds
Assistant CG, HK-416A5 "14'5 + 6 rounds
Machinegunner, MG-5
Assistant MG, HK-416A5 "14'5

So if your HK FN MAG breaks down you have no sustained automatic fire capability? Sounds great.

Sustained automatic fire isn't that good. It is much more effective to have precise fire than sustained fire, which is a driving force behind the adoption of the M27 IRL. The enemy is much more likely to keep their heads down when the rounds are cracking past their heads than they are if the rounds are taking off tree branches two or three meters away.

by **Purpelia** » Fri May 31, 2019 1:41 pm

Which is why every one of my soldiers gets a bullpup rifle with a built in bipod, heavier barrel and start off with a drum magazine. And I can afford the extra weight thanks to the savings from making it a bullpup with polymer everything.

by **The Manticoran Empire** » Fri May 31, 2019 1:43 pm

Purpelia wrote:Which is why every one of my soldiers gets a bullpup rifle with a built in bipod, heavier barrel and start off with a drum magazine. And I can afford the extra weight thanks to the savings from making it a bullpup with polymer everything.

I just issue the M27 guy with 50 round box mags and a bipod.

by **Purpelia** » Fri May 31, 2019 1:46 pm

The Manticoran Empire wrote:
Purpelia wrote:Which is why every one of my soldiers gets a bullpup rifle with a built in bipod, heavier barrel and start off with a drum magazine. And I can afford the extra weight thanks to the savings from making it a bullpup with polymer everything.

I just issue the M27 guy with 50 round box mags and a bipod.

I basically don't use an automatic rifle equivalent. My squads are basically:
1 x RPG-7
1 x Grenade Launcher (think XM-25) + rifle
1 x GPMG
5 x Rifle
And one of them gets an UGL. And they all get optics because obviously.

Simple and cheerful. And theoretically every man with a rifle doubles as an automatic rifleman or DMR. Theoretically at least. In practice not so much. But that's why you get ATGM's and proper DMRs in each platoon. Also a light mortar. Because mortars are love. Mortars are life.

by **The Manticoran Empire** » Fri May 31, 2019 3:20 pm

Purpelia wrote:
The Manticoran Empire wrote:I just issue the M27 guy with 50 round box mags and a bipod.

I basically don't use an automatic rifle equivalent. My squads are basically:
1 x RPG-7
1 x Grenade Launcher (think XM-25) + rifle
1 x GPMG
5 x Rifle
And one of them gets an UGL. And they all get optics because obviously.

Simple and cheerful. And theoretically every man with a rifle doubles as an automatic rifleman or DMR. Theoretically at least. In practice not so much. But that's why you get ATGM's and proper DMRs in each platoon. Also a light mortar. Because mortars are love. Mortars are life.

The XM-25 can't be paired with a rifle. It weighs 14 freaking pounds.

by **Theodosiya** » Fri May 31, 2019 3:39 pm

So, between using M27 or MG4 in the maneuver squad...and one rifleman are also RTO...

by **The Manticoran Empire** » Fri May 31, 2019 4:08 pm

Theodosiya wrote:So, between using M27 or MG4 in the maneuver squad...and one rifleman are also RTO...

The M27 is a better option in my opinion. It's lighter and much more accurate. It also shares the same magazines as the other weapons.

Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

Who is online