NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Hurtful Thoughts]

possibly terrible idea of the day:

select-fire, open-bolt (or mixed like an fn scar) rifle (with a cover that doubles as a safety ala the m3 grease gun) fed with caseless ammunition with a magazine/feed configuration kinda similar to the g11

and it also looks old-timey aesthetically as in late 19th/early 20th century

please dissect this idea before i go whacky mode with my nation's military lore

The alternative to this if I keep on this path will probably just be a bog-standard large caliber bolt-action rifle (ignoring why countries switched to semi-auto and then assault rifles of course), which of course does beg the question what advantages could be there for that specific brand of tomfoolery

Well, the G11 is a rotary-feed (basically a revolver but as designed by an AI tripping on acid), so out-of-battery ignition means the cartridge is still pointed vertically up into the magazine when you touch the primer off instead of lined-up with the barrel.

If somehow the dust-cover gets slammed shut while you pull the trigger, bad stuff gonna happen if the cover prevents the chamber from aligning with the barrel in time.

As for bolt action advantages to a normal grunt, none. Like, a fucking Chuachat is better than a Mauser 98 in a lot of ways.

[Torrocca]

possibly terrible idea of the day:

select-fire, open-bolt (or mixed like an fn scar) rifle (with a cover that doubles as a safety ala the m3 grease gun) fed with caseless ammunition with a magazine/feed configuration kinda similar to the g11

and it also looks old-timey aesthetically as in late 19th/early 20th century

please dissect this idea before i go whacky mode with my nation's military lore

The alternative to this if I keep on this path will probably just be a bog-standard large caliber bolt-action rifle (ignoring why countries switched to semi-auto and then assault rifles of course), which of course does beg the question what advantages could be there for that specific brand of tomfoolery

Well, the G11 is a rotary-feed (basically a revolver but as designed by an AI tripping on acid), so out-of-battery ignition means the cartridge is still pointed vertically up into the magazine when you touch the primer off instead of lined-up with the barrel.

If somehow the dust-cover gets slammed shut while you pull the trigger, bad stuff gonna happen if the cover prevents the chamber from aligning with the barrel in time.

so as long as neither of these two possibilities happen all is well and good?

sweet

As for bolt action advantages to a normal grunt, none. Like, a fucking Chuachat is better than a Mauser 98 in a lot of ways.

perfect, that's exactly what i needed to read, the torroccans shall attack with the disadvantage

:­)

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Well, the G11 is a rotary-feed (basically a revolver but as designed by an AI tripping on acid), so out-of-battery ignition means the cartridge is still pointed vertically up into the magazine when you touch the primer off instead of lined-up with the barrel.

If somehow the dust-cover gets slammed shut while you pull the trigger, bad stuff gonna happen if the cover prevents the chamber from aligning with the barrel in time.

so as long as neither of these two possibilities happen all is well and good?

sweet

As for bolt action advantages to a normal grunt, none. Like, a fucking Chuachat is better than a Mauser 98 in a lot of ways.

perfect, that's exactly what i needed to read, the torroccans shall attack with the disadvantage

:­)

Ah, going for hard-mode flavor-text.

A cultural rational for sticking to bolt-actions could be cost and emphasis on specialist 'force-multipliers', like grenade-launchers and machine-guns. Plus mayhaps the prototypes failed spectacularily enough to give the general-staff a phobia of a fully semi-automatic squad of grunts.

Plus a matter of cost/upkeep of vast reserves of bolt actions for if you engage in levee-en-masse to give a standard-caliber person-defense carbine that only needs to go bang when a few spetzies end up on the perimeter of an artillery battery. Y'know, just long enough for someone to swing the mounted .50 cals and Mk-19s in their general direction.

Also, bolt actions for niche roles, like grenadier (firing large rifle-grenades), sniper/suppressed marksman (lack of ejecting brass and quieter due to no possibility of overgassing) it can still serve to good effect. The service-life of the MAS-36 after WW2 and into the Indochina conflict was pretty much this. The M1903A4 continued to be a thing largely due to difficulties properly mounting a scope onto an M1 Garand and the M70/M40A1 was a thing in Vietnam due to problems with properly bedding an M14A1 receiver in jungle humidity. The Arctic Warfare rifle was a thing because it needed a cheap big-bore bear-gun that won't freeze itself shut.

Giving for example an assistant machine-gunner or mortar-crews a bolt action rifle and a pair of anti-tank rifle grenades and maybe a suppressor and you kinda have yourself the 600m part of a modern french fireteam.
-When your sniper-team starts becoming the door-kicker squad, someone planned something very wrong

[Torrocca]

so as long as neither of these two possibilities happen all is well and good?

sweet



perfect, that's exactly what i needed to read, the torroccans shall attack with the disadvantage

:­)

Ah, going for hard-mode flavor-text.

A cultural rational for sticking to bolt-actions could be cost and emphasis on specialist 'force-multipliers', like grenade-launchers and machine-guns. Plus mayhaps the prototypes failed spectacularily enough to give the general-staff a phobia of a fully semi-automatic squad of grunts.

Yup, I'm digging this as an explanation. Fits good with what'll be a mass-conscript force that's been designed (at least partially smartly) around weight of numbers combined with solid support networks rather than an emphasis on bestest infantry ever, plus has the added fun tidbit of lore that Torroccan 20th century gun manufacturers were on some hot shit with designs that couldn't be reasonably unfucked lmao

I am a big fan of the idea of everything else being set up to be a much stronger and more present element in combat, leaving the buck standard infantry both with less to do but also less to work with which tragically fucks them when the time comes that they gotta get stuck into it!

Plus a matter of cost/upkeep of vast reserves of bolt actions for if you engage in levee-en-masse to give a standard-caliber person-defense carbine that only needs to go bang when a few spetzies end up on the perimeter of an artillery battery. Y'know, just long enough for someone to swing the mounted .50 cals and Mk-19s in their general direction.

Also another good point; the other masses of second-rate troops doing everything unrelated to frontline work probably aren't gonna need the latest geared-out version of a variant of a copycat of an M4 to pop a couple shots off and alert their general perimeter that some assholes are trying to blow up whatever they're protecting, and the funny supportive crewed weapons gotta get rid of them fast.

Also, bolt actions for niche roles, like grenadier (firing large rifle-grenades), sniper/suppressed marksman (lack of ejecting brass and quieter due to no possibility of overgassing) it can still serve to good effect. The service-life of the MAS-36 after WW2 and into the Indochina conflict was pretty much this. The M1903A4 continued to be a thing largely due to difficulties properly mounting a scope onto an M1 Garand and the M70/M40A1 was a thing in Vietnam due to problems with properly bedding an M14A1 receiver in jungle humidity. The Arctic Warfare rifle was a thing because it needed a cheap big-bore bear-gun that won't freeze itself shut.

Yeah, one of the things I was heavily considering was definitely rifle grenades. A silly idea I had there would be that more men than not would have them, to make up for the lack of general firepower (and an additional amount of weight easily carried due to a lack of personal protection/armor) and to complement a diversified/specialized setup of grenade ammunition that would be a mix of fragmentation/HE, flashes, smokes, incendiaries, and maybe something that could bonk lightly armored or unarmored vehicles.

Giving for example an assistant machine-gunner or mortar-crews a bolt action rifle and a pair of anti-tank rifle grenades and maybe a suppressor and you kinda have yourself the 600m part of a modern french fireteam.

Oh, they'd definitely have some. I'm feeling maybe some carbine version that's greatly lighter (perhaps with a welded-on bayonet ala the M44 Mosin) but is drawn back by a lack of ammunition because the standard design's fed by a tubular magazine for some reason(s), say tradition or because i just think wood-stocked weapons look way better without a magazine jutting out of the bottom lol

-When your sniper-team starts becoming the door-kicker squad, someone planned something very wrong

they can 360 noscope faster than the defenders can switch to their pistols

Rubble instead of a breached building is always an option :­)

[Hurtful Thoughts]

[ALL OF THIS]

Yeah, may I present to you, the doom-carrot?

Also, [hand] grenade-adapters are a thing. Although you can also arm a rifle grenade mortar-bomb style.

[Torrocca]

[ALL OF THIS]

Yeah, may I present to you, the doom-carrot?

Oh, that fucks. The conscripts are gonna be eating armor tonight!

Also, [hand] grenade-adapters are a thing. Although you can also arm a rifle grenade mortar-bomb style.

Oh, yeah, I know that much at least lmao

In any case these poor conscripts are gonna make up for their shitty rifle with a lot of kaboom

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Yeah, may I present to you, the doom-carrot?

Oh, that fucks. The conscripts are gonna be eating armor tonight!

Also, [hand] grenade-adapters are a thing. Although you can also arm a rifle grenade mortar-bomb style.

Oh, yeah, I know that much at least lmao

In any case these poor conscripts are gonna make up for their shitty rifle with a lot of kaboom

Sadly, in practice, the doom-carrot requires specialist training otherwise you get something like a 20% hit-rate at 50 meters and a 10% chance of crippling yourself.

Winter trigger is required so as not to break your fingers in the trigger guard when you cherry-pop the trigger.

[Torrocca]

Oh, that fucks. The conscripts are gonna be eating armor tonight!



Oh, yeah, I know that much at least lmao

In any case these poor conscripts are gonna make up for their shitty rifle with a lot of kaboom

Sadly, in practice, the doom-carrot requires specialist training otherwise you get something like a 20% hit-rate at 50 meters and a 10% chance of crippling yourself.

Winter trigger is required so as not to break your fingers in the trigger guard when you cherry-pop the trigger.

i'm sure there won't be any problems simply giving them the carrot of doom and telling them to point it at the nearest enemy/vehicle/structure :­)

[Juansonia]

What are the main drawbacks of a pump-action rifle compared to a bolt-action rifle (assuming ammunition isn't a difference), and which drawbacks would be most relevant in the WW1/WW2 eras?

[Spirit of Hope]

What are the main drawbacks of a pump-action rifle compared to a bolt-action rifle that takes the same ammunition, and which drawbacks would be most relevant in the WW1/WW2 eras?

The three biggest issues would likely be difficulty using spitzer bullets, using stripper clips to go with a pump action tube fed rifle, and ease of production. Spitzer bullets could be designed around, but you are going to have a hard time making a tube fed that takes stripper clips, and it will in the end cost more/take more effort to produce. Combined that all means that a pump action rifle basically becomes a rifle that is more expensive but less effective.

[GreatOceania]

What are the main drawbacks of a pump-action rifle compared to a bolt-action rifle (assuming ammunition isn't a difference), and which drawbacks would be most relevant in the WW1/WW2 eras?

I'm gonna simplified into 3 points

1. The pumping of the rifle could throw off the shooter's position which could hinder the precision of shooting
2. If the gun uses a tubular magazine like the French Lebel rifle it means a long time to reload and also a bit more weight at the end you could use speedloaders similar to shotguns but that could take up space and maybe weight on the soldier's belt and while it takes less time to reload the rifle it has its own issues
3. depending on where you are fighting one might find pumping the gun a little harder compared to a bolt

Snip

The Lebel Rifle is a tubular magazine rifle and it used Spitzer bullets just fine

[Juansonia]

What are the main drawbacks of a pump-action rifle compared to a bolt-action rifle (assuming ammunition isn't a difference), and which drawbacks would be most relevant in the WW1/WW2 eras?

I'm gonna simplified into 3 points

1. The pumping of the rifle could throw off the shooter's position which could hinder the precision of shooting

Upon looking into this, I learned that bolt-action rifles weren't as terrible in terms of follow-up shots compared to my expectations. Thank you.

3. depending on where you are fighting one might find pumping the gun a little harder compared to a bolt

In the case of firing while prone, would a bipod (or even a monopod) help?

Snip

The Lebel Rifle is a tubular magazine rifle and it used Spitzer bullets just fine

It's not like I'm even going to use a tubular magazine, tbh. My stupid idea probably would be an alteration of the Gewehr 98's design.

[Spirit of Hope]

What are the main drawbacks of a pump-action rifle compared to a bolt-action rifle (assuming ammunition isn't a difference), and which drawbacks would be most relevant in the WW1/WW2 eras?

I'm gonna simplified into 3 points

1. The pumping of the rifle could throw off the shooter's position which could hinder the precision of shooting
2. If the gun uses a tubular magazine like the French Lebel rifle it means a long time to reload and also a bit more weight at the end you could use speedloaders similar to shotguns but that could take up space and maybe weight on the soldier's belt and while it takes less time to reload the rifle it has its own issues
3. depending on where you are fighting one might find pumping the gun a little harder compared to a bolt

Snip

The Lebel Rifle is a tubular magazine rifle and it used Spitzer bullets just fine

As I said, you can do it. However it generally requires additional engineering and machining which makes the weapon more expensive for no major value added. In the case of the Label, it originally used flat bullets before France adopted spitzers, which required work to be conducted to make sure the spitzer bullets wouldn't impact the primer of the other rounds in the magazine. This was easier for the French than adopting an entirely new rifle so it made sense, but when they replaced it they went with a bolt action box magazine rifle in the MAS-36.

[GreatOceania]

As I said, you can do it. However it generally requires additional engineering and machining which makes the weapon more expensive for no major value added. In the case of the Label, it originally used flat bullets before France adopted spitzers, which required work to be conducted to make sure the spitzer bullets wouldn't impact the primer of the other rounds in the magazine. This was easier for the French than adopting an entirely new rifle so it made sense, but when they replaced it they went with a bolt action box magazine rifle in the MAS-36.

The flat nose 8mm Lebel bullet can't really set off the primer of the one in front of it so there was no need to really do anything about it but when Spitzer came into play the French realize they didn't need to do a whole of work when they could just modify the casing slightly


The one on the left is the Balle M the round nose cartridge and on the right is the Balle D which was the Spitzer as you can see there is a ring around the primer this is how the French solved the problem it wouldn't take much to add such a thing to the bottom of the bullet just few seconds of machining.

3. depending on where you are fighting one might find pumping the gun a little harder compared to a bolt

In the case of firing while prone, would a bipod (or even a monopod) help?

If using with a Bolt-action rifle yes however with a pump-action rifle there is an issue that will affect the user trying to pump the gun if you have a bipod folded to the user it gets in the way if you folded it to the side of the gun it will also get in the away if you try to pump it. Honestly your best option is just go with an bolt action rifle

[Spirit of Hope]

As I said, you can do it. However it generally requires additional engineering and machining which makes the weapon more expensive for no major value added. In the case of the Label, it originally used flat bullets before France adopted spitzers, which required work to be conducted to make sure the spitzer bullets wouldn't impact the primer of the other rounds in the magazine. This was easier for the French than adopting an entirely new rifle so it made sense, but when they replaced it they went with a bolt action box magazine rifle in the MAS-36.

The flat nose 8mm Lebel bullet can't really set off the primer of the one in front of it so there was no need to really do anything about it but when Spitzer came into play the French realize they didn't need to do a whole of work when they could just modify the casing slightly


The one on the left is the Balle M the round nose cartridge and on the right is the Balle D which was the Spitzer as you can see there is a ring around the primer this is how the French solved the problem it wouldn't take much to add such a thing to the bottom of the bullet just few seconds of machining.

A half a second of additional machining over 1,000,000 rounds is 5 additional days of machine time and you will be firing a lot more than that in a major war. Though the difference probably isn't any machine time given how cartridges are manufactured, the tool that heads the case probably would also add the ring.

The 8mm Label is a heavily tapered bullet which is why the tip of the spitzer bullet could be captured in a ring, a different round may not be able to use that same solution. I never said it was an insurmountable problem, I said it was a problem that had no benefits worth overcoming. For the French, since they already had the Label, it was a problem worth overcoming because the only other option was adopting an entirely new rifle, if you are new building a rifle why bother?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I'm gonna simplified into 3 points

1. The pumping of the rifle could throw off the shooter's position which could hinder the precision of shooting

Upon looking into this, I learned that bolt-action rifles weren't as terrible in terms of follow-up shots compared to my expectations. Thank you.

3. depending on where you are fighting one might find pumping the gun a little harder compared to a bolt

In the case of firing while prone, would a bipod (or even a monopod) help?

The Lebel Rifle is a tubular magazine rifle and it used Spitzer bullets just fine

It's not like I'm even going to use a tubular magazine, tbh. My stupid idea probably would be an alteration of the Gewehr 98's design.

So basically a pump-action instead of lever action Winchester 1895?

Mostly the cost of getting the cams just right for a smooth action.

Also, more moving arts, greater wear/tear and a bit more environmentally finnicky.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Airbases and ports on land doesn't move...

I said "as an anti-ship weapon". Of course slapping artillery onto a ship is a good idea for targeting land.

edit: would an artillery ship be a frigate?

Depends...

[Juansonia]

I said "as an anti-ship weapon". Of course slapping artillery onto a ship is a good idea for targeting land.

edit: would an artillery ship be a frigate?

Depends...

I shouldn't have asked an impossible question. Sorry.

The one common trait of frigates is that, when asked what type of ship the warship should be categorised, the designer said "Ah, frigate!"

[Crookfur]

Depends...

I shouldn't have asked an impossible question. Sorry.

The one common trait of frigates is that, when asked what type of ship the warship should be categorised, the designer said "Ah, frigate!"

It's not an impossible question, the answer is that it's unlikely that the term frigate would be used. However as ABH said its going to depend on a lot of factors such as how the ship is designed and how it is intended to go about being an "artillery ship".

For example if you mean say a euro frigate/type 23/26 with the ASW fit scaled back and a 6"/155mm gun in place of the usual 3-5" then yeah its still a frigate. On the other hand if it's all gun and built to be stable whilst firing in coastal waters then I suppose it would really be a form of monitor.
Finally if you were the US Navy you would call it something like the Coastal Litoral Artillery Support Ship but without an acronym that can be said normally.