Infantry Discussion Thread 6: True Korea Edition

[Fordorsia]

Well, no. It would be if you were better informed on the physical properties of the lightsaber.

What so it would just collide with the falchion instead of cutting right through it? In that case I still win because I push the lightsaber into your face while I cleave your head asunder : D

[EsToVnIa]

Well, no. It would be if you were better informed on the physical properties of the lightsaber.

What so it would just collide with the falchion instead of cutting right through it? In that case I still win because I push the lightsaber into your face while I cleave your head asunder : D

Well, seeing as the lightsaber has a blade of pure plasma suspended in a force containment field, the falchion would just melt :\

[Fordorsia]

What so it would just collide with the falchion instead of cutting right through it? In that case I still win because I push the lightsaber into your face while I cleave your head asunder : D

Well, seeing as the lightsaber has a blade of pure plasma suspended in a force containment field, the falchion would just melt :\

Then whoever is holding the lightsaber gets a nice molten steel facial.

[EsToVnIa]

Well, seeing as the lightsaber has a blade of pure plasma suspended in a force containment field, the falchion would just melt :\

Then whoever is holding the lightsaber gets a nice molten steel facial.

Not really. The falchion probably would've been removed from the assailants hands via the force prior to any direct contact with the Jedi/Sith/Imperial Knights/Acolytes/etc.

[Fordorsia]

Then whoever is holding the lightsaber gets a nice molten steel facial.

Not really. The falchion probably would've been removed from the assailants hands via the force prior to any direct contact with the Jedi/Sith/Imperial Knights/Acolytes/etc.

Well I was just assuming the strike actually happened. In that very specific case, the falchion is better than a shitty lightsaber. Fuck you Star Wars and your advanced yet backwards technology

[The Kievan People]

I didn't think the IDT could get even worse.

[Fordorsia]

Yeah thanks Prem. You fucked it all up.

[Sevvania]

I'm looking for pics of Mosins with VG-44 suppressors.

Who has some?

---

I also discovered that chainmail shoulder armor was used during WWI in order to allow machine gunners to carry their guns even if the barrels were hot.

[Arkandros]

I didn't think the IDT could get even worse.

It can always be worse. We haven't quite reached standardized pants-on-head stupidity. Now, tighten your belts around your forehead and prepare for a stupid question:
Why was there a shift away from the "every man a marksman" philosophy of the first and early second world war? It occurred to me that, while automatic fire makes sense in some situations, rifle suppression is generally largely dependent on accuracy, and a lot of discussion of MGs on the IDT ends with "bigger caliber=more suppression". Based on these two points, battle rifles should be the standard rather than the exception. Are the advantages of assault rifles (lighter weight, more ammo per magazine, more ammo overall) significant enough to outweigh the apparent performance advantages of battle rifles? Additionally, could a small army with a high ratio of mechanization shunt enough equipment into/onto a vehicle to negate the weight disadvantage of issuing battle rifles?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I didn't think the IDT could get even worse.

It can always be worse. We haven't quite reached standardized pants-on-head stupidity. Now, tighten your belts around your forehead and prepare for a stupid question:
Why was there a shift away from the "every man a marksman" philosophy of the first and early second world war? It occurred to me that, while automatic fire makes sense in some situations, rifle suppression is generally largely dependent on accuracy, and a lot of discussion of MGs on the IDT ends with "bigger caliber=more suppression". Based on these two points, battle rifles should be the standard rather than the exception. Are the advantages of assault rifles (lighter weight, more ammo per magazine, more ammo overall) significant enough to outweigh the apparent performance advantages of battle rifles? Additionally, could a small army with a high ratio of mechanization shunt enough equipment into/onto a vehicle to negate the weight disadvantage of issuing battle rifles?

I actually got a little depressed reading this.

[Arkandros]

It can always be worse. We haven't quite reached standardized pants-on-head stupidity. Now, tighten your belts around your forehead and prepare for a stupid question:
Why was there a shift away from the "every man a marksman" philosophy of the first and early second world war? It occurred to me that, while automatic fire makes sense in some situations, rifle suppression is generally largely dependent on accuracy, and a lot of discussion of MGs on the IDT ends with "bigger caliber=more suppression". Based on these two points, battle rifles should be the standard rather than the exception. Are the advantages of assault rifles (lighter weight, more ammo per magazine, more ammo overall) significant enough to outweigh the apparent performance advantages of battle rifles? Additionally, could a small army with a high ratio of mechanization shunt enough equipment into/onto a vehicle to negate the weight disadvantage of issuing battle rifles?

I actually got a little depressed reading this.

Mission success.
EDIT: srsly tho, why no love for battle rifles anymore? Especially with the US' problems with long range engagements in the Middle East, I would have expected them to make a comeback. (I don't know if they have or not.)

[Sevvania]

I didn't think the IDT could get even worse.

It can always be worse. We haven't quite reached standardized pants-on-head stupidity. Now, tighten your belts around your forehead and prepare for a stupid question:
Why was there a shift away from the "every man a marksman" philosophy of the first and early second world war? It occurred to me that, while automatic fire makes sense in some situations, rifle suppression is generally largely dependent on accuracy, and a lot of discussion of MGs on the IDT ends with "bigger caliber=more suppression". Based on these two points, battle rifles should be the standard rather than the exception. Are the advantages of assault rifles (lighter weight, more ammo per magazine, more ammo overall) significant enough to outweigh the apparent performance advantages of battle rifles? Additionally, could a small army with a high ratio of mechanization shunt enough equipment into/onto a vehicle to negate the weight disadvantage of issuing battle rifles?

Higher caliber doesn't necessarily mean more suppression. Rate and volume of fire does. If you can carry more ammo, you can fire more rounds, which means you can suppress more. That's why battle rifles have taken sort of a back seat to assault rifles: they fire larger rounds with greater range, but you can't carry as many of them, and an intermediate cartridge is often regarded as adequate for general use.

Sevvania, however, still makes extensive use of battle rifles because '40s tech.

Edit: I need to go back and clean up some lines, add a safety, and maybe give it slab-sided mags instead of waffley ones.

[Puzikas]

I'm looking for pics of Mosins with VG-44 suppressors.

Yep.

Sorry for theshitty res

Why was there a shift away from the "every man a marksman" philosophy of the first and early second world war? It occurred to me that, while automatic fire makes sense in some situations, rifle suppression is generally largely dependent on accuracy, and a lot of discussion of MGs on the IDT ends with "bigger caliber=more suppression". Based on these two points, battle rifles should be the standard rather than the exception. Are the advantages of assault rifles (lighter weight, more ammo per magazine, more ammo overall) significant enough to outweigh the apparent performance advantages of battle rifles? Additionally, could a small army with a high ratio of mechanization shunt enough equipment into/onto a vehicle to negate the weight disadvantage of issuing battle rifles?

suppression isn't necessary dependent on minute of angle accuracy but minute of man or formation accuracy. Neither of these are really terms used in common parlance, but basically they refer to the generally acceptable accuracy of weapons at distance. Almost every rifle is more capable of a higher rate of accuracy than its shooter is capable of actually shooting; as such, most rifles at the extended combat ranges (300m and beyond) are considered minute of man. Most Machine guns are intended for a suppressive purpose and as such might be called "minute of formation", there they need to hit a specific area with a certain number of shots at distance. Really the only one I can think of at the moment is a 1mx1m area of fire requiring at least 50 rounds out of 100 fired at 500 meters from a supported firing position.

Suppression is also a bit less a function of caliber and much more one of volume of fire, which is why modern rifles and ammunition are superior in that regard to battle rifles; If someone is saying larger calibers are better for suppression, they're not wrong, but they aren't correct. Its very situational. At longer (300-500m+) ranges it is for sure, but closer than this it makes little difference.

The reason for the egress from accurate fire is it simply doesn't work that way. If you've ever shot before you know how hard it can be to line up your sights on a paper target at 100-200 ards, I invite you to think of how hard that must be while being shot at.

[The Kievan People]

Why was there a shift away from the "every man a marksman" philosophy of the first and early second world war? It occurred to me that, while automatic fire makes sense in some situations, rifle suppression is generally largely dependent on accuracy, and a lot of discussion of MGs on the IDT ends with "bigger caliber=more suppression". Based on these two points, battle rifles should be the standard rather than the exception. Are the advantages of assault rifles (lighter weight, more ammo per magazine, more ammo overall) significant enough to outweigh the apparent performance advantages of battle rifles? Additionally, could a small army with a high ratio of mechanization shunt enough equipment into/onto a vehicle to negate the weight disadvantage of issuing battle rifles?

Also note, modern rifle training is designed not just to teach soldiers how to shoot guns but to condition soldiers to shoot at the enemy. And it is actually a lot more efficient than the training used in the first half of the century which produced a lot of technically competent shooters, most of whom wouldn't actually shoot in combat. Most soldiers these days will shoot while only a minority of soldiers in WWI and WWII would.

So a modern squads rifle fire can be expected to be far more effective.

[Husseinarti]

I actually got a little depressed reading this.

Mission success.
EDIT: srsly tho, why no love for battle rifles anymore? Especially with the US' problems with long range engagements in the Middle East, I would have expected them to make a comeback. (I don't know if they have or not.)

Battle rifles never left?

The term battle rifle being used for specifically rifle caliber chambering service rifles is a gimmicky term from the 1980s. Battle rifle means any and all service rifles.

Also hes depressed because the shift that happened was because of this little known German firearm called the Maschinenkarabiner 1942. It got issued to troops which had access to semi-automatic rifle caliber service rifles, bolt action rifles and SMGs. Even though the effective range was shorter, the fact that the engagement range of the firefight had never really gone into the range were everybody in a company would have their rifles' sights set to 1000 meters to engage someone. Only marksman would really every engage someone at this range.

What was found was that it wasn't that "everyman a sniper" or whatever silly thought process they had in 1910, it was that within 500 meters or so, the squad that could put out more rounds from more guns would win the firefight. The squad with more localized fires support and automatic weaponry would out perform a squad of bolt-action rifles within 400-500 meters. Even issuing semi-automatic rifles like the M1 Garand was a massive advantage for US troops, and the M1s were highly sought after by EVERYONE because of this.

The average US Army squad was 12 men. It consisted of 1-2 M1918A2 BARs and 10-11 M1 Garands. It was fairly standard for squads to have 2 M1918A2s and 10 M1 Garands, possibly augmented with M1 Carines and M1 Thompsons.

The M1 Garand has a rate of fire of 40-50 rounds per minute, and the M1918A2 of 500-650 rounds per minute. Overall a squad of 10 riflemen and 2 BARs has a combined ROF of 1,400 to 1,800 rounds per minute. Each rifleman has 8 rounds he can fire within 15 seconds, allowing him to rapidly suppress the enemy while the rest of his team maneuvers or to cover the BAR gunner to reload.

The comparable German rifle company squad has 2 MP-40s, a single MG34, and 7 Kar98k rifles. Its comprised of 10 men.

The Kar98k has a rate of fire of 15-20 rounds per minute, however its dependent on the shooter. The MP-40 has a rate of fire of 500-550 rounds per minute, however, the issue is that most firefights took place from 300-400 meters, which makes using the MP-40's 200 meter effective range (In test conditions mind you) ineffective. Lastly, the MG34 has an ROF of 800-900 rounds per minute. To level it out, we'll give the Germans two more riflemen.

A German squad has an overall rof of 965 to 1,120 rounds a minute not counting the SMGs. The only way for a German squad to effectively get an advantage over the US squad is for the German squad to get the 2 MP-40s, which bring it to 2,180. However half of that is withheld to a certain effective range.

Overall, the German squad still may lose in a fight with their MP-40s if the US squad's NCO has the M1 Thompson SMG, which projects the US squad to 2,060 to 2,500 rounds per minute effective.

The STG-44 really improved the German's tactical advantage in a firefight. The standard SS Panzergrenadier squad could find itself with 2 MP-40s, 2 MG34s, 3 Kar98ks, and 3 StG-44 assault rifles. Overall, with additional 2 riflemen for manpower balance, equals to 3,775 to a staggering 4,800 rounds per minute overall.

A modern US Army squad is comprised of 9 men, 2 M249s and 7 M4 carbines. The 2 M249s have a rate of fire of 800 rounds per minute, with the 7 M4 carbines a rate of fire of 700-950 rounds per minute. That equals to 6,500-8,250 rounds per minute overall.

In realistic terms, not everyone will be dumping mag after mag, instead the MG may only be shooting at 100-200 rounds per minute because of short, aimed bursts. The riflemen would be firing on semi-automatic or bursts, expending only 100 or so rounds a minute. It was the same then, its the same now.

[The Kievan People]

*cough* MG 42 *cough*

[United states of brazilian nations]

It can always be worse. We haven't quite reached standardized pants-on-head stupidity. Now, tighten your belts around your forehead and prepare for a stupid question:
Why was there a shift away from the "every man a marksman" philosophy of the first and early second world war? It occurred to me that, while automatic fire makes sense in some situations, rifle suppression is generally largely dependent on accuracy, and a lot of discussion of MGs on the IDT ends with "bigger caliber=more suppression". Based on these two points, battle rifles should be the standard rather than the exception. Are the advantages of assault rifles (lighter weight, more ammo per magazine, more ammo overall) significant enough to outweigh the apparent performance advantages of battle rifles? Additionally, could a small army with a high ratio of mechanization shunt enough equipment into/onto a vehicle to negate the weight disadvantage of issuing battle rifles?

Higher caliber doesn't necessarily mean more suppression. Rate and volume of fire does. If you can carry more ammo, you can fire more rounds, which means you can suppress more. That's why battle rifles have taken sort of a back seat to assault rifles: they fire larger rounds with greater range, but you can't carry as many of them, and an intermediate cartridge is often regarded as adequate for general use.

Sevvania, however, still makes extensive use of battle rifles because '40s tech.

Edit: I need to go back and clean up some lines, add a safety, and maybe give it slab-sided mags instead of waffley ones.

a safety that shouldn't be hard to do in PMG (or MS paint as well) is the one i chose for the Modelo 1940 (exactly because it was the easiest to draw)

but, looking at your design, you could probably add a Garand-style safety instead.

also, i really, really need to rework this abomination.

[Sediczja]

Working on an ATRL that's basically a Vz. 27 Pancerovka with a percussion firing system instead of electromagnetic. Would a pull-down striker mounted in front of the trigger work? With the trigger mechanism just being a sliding bar that holds back the striker when it's cocked.

[Imperializt Russia]

7.92mm rounds already exist.

13mm offers very little advantages of 12.7mm. With the major advantage being "durrr i'm a speshul snowflake"

I know 7.92mm rounds exist, but they're mostly for hunting and are pretty much copies of the 7.92mm Mauser round. Not very modern at all.

13mm was just because German guns.

The M80 7.62mm cartridge dates from the 1950s. The .50BMG cartridge hasn't changed that much since the 30s. 7.62x54mmR is the oldest service cartridge still in widespread use.

You're implying things that aren't so.

stone cleaver trumps all

Nigga pls, 12 bore double-rifle & assorted kit trumps all; Westley-Richards Explora Cartridges in particular.

That is unreasonably pretty.

A muuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better Khanda:

(Image)

Ditto that. The detailing made me think I was looking at an IRL chainsword

[United states of brazilian nations]

stone cleaver trumps all

Nigga pls, 12 bore double-rifle & assorted kit trumps all; Westley-Richards Explora Cartridges in particular.

the rounds sure do look really, really mean.



ouch.

[Imperializt Russia]

Nigga pls, 12 bore double-rifle & assorted kit trumps all; Westley-Richards Explora Cartridges in particular.

the rounds sure do look really, really mean.



ouch.

Well what it is, is an 18.5mm piece of hollow metal that, through witchcraft and evil, becomes significantly larger than 18.5mm.

[United states of brazilian nations]

the rounds sure do look really, really mean.

(Image)

ouch.

Well what it is, is an 18.5mm piece of hollow metal that, through witchcraft and evil, becomes significantly larger than 18.5mm.

may i sig this?

edit: and it is done.

[Imperializt Russia]

You needn't ask

[Azurg]

So,
I've been thinking a squidge more on Skaven infantry. Firstly I've decided to push infantry tactics, and technology to an extent, back further towards the Eerste Werldoorlog. This is done largely for stylistic purposes, and to illustrate a societal preference for political conformity over tactical and technological innovation. There are, of course, a few exceptions, by those mostly manifest in the armoured and sky corps.

Anyway. . . I was thinking that, due in part to a reliance on reliance on overwhelming numbers and a strong preference for attrition warfare, the smallest infantry unit commonly deployed would be the company. Said companies would consist of three to five rifle platoons, one to two grenadier platoons and a command platoon. This would in turn be bolstered by machine gun a/o mortar platoons from the artillery unit.

Each rile platoon will consist of fifteen rat-men, each with a self loading rifle, with the exception of the platoon IC and 2IC, who carry a sword and pistol and a machine carbine respectively. The rifle platoon's primary purpose is to provide suppressive/diversionary fire.

Grenadier platoons are of similar size to their traditional counterparts, but feature significantly better training and a substantially different structure. Unlike rifle platoons, which are commanded as a single large unit, grenadiers are meant to be split into three groups of five or any other composition the IC deems necessary. Each group contains one 7x50mm SLR, one 30mm grenade launcher, one 7x31mm LMG and two 7x31mm automatic carbines.

Command platoons are generally quite a bit smaller than those meant for combat. They consist of the platoon IC and 2IC, two or more advisors/commissars, five messengers, a medic and two drivers.

[Fordorsia]

So,
I've been thinking a squidge more on Skaven infantry. Firstly I've decided to push infantry tactics, and technology to an extent, back further towards the Eerste Werldoorlog. This is done largely for stylistic purposes, and to illustrate a societal preference for political conformity over tactical and technological innovation. There are, of course, a few exceptions, by those mostly manifest in the armoured and sky corps.

Anyway. . . I was thinking that, due in part to a reliance on reliance on overwhelming numbers and a strong preference for attrition warfare, the smallest infantry unit commonly deployed would be the company. Said companies would consist of three to five rifle platoons, one to two grenadier platoons and a command platoon. This would in turn be bolstered by machine gun a/o mortar platoons from the artillery unit.

Each rile platoon will consist of fifteen rat-men, each with a self loading rifle, with the exception of the platoon IC and 2IC, who carry a sword and pistol and a machine carbine respectively. The rifle platoon's primary purpose is to provide suppressive/diversionary fire.

Grenadier platoons are of similar size to their traditional counterparts, but feature significantly better training and a substantially different structure. Unlike rifle platoons, which are commanded as a single large unit, grenadiers are meant to be split into three groups of five or any other composition the IC deems necessary. Each group contains one 7x50mm SLR, one 30mm grenade launcher, one 7x31mm LMG and two 7x31mm automatic carbines.

Command platoons are generally quite a bit smaller than those meant for combat. They consist of the platoon IC and 2IC, two or more advisors/commissars, five messengers, a medic and two drivers.

I don't know about organization and stuff like that, but why use a sword when modern firearms are in use?