Infantry Discussion Thread 9: Parabellum [NO KAIJU]

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Thank you based Puz for the knowledge dump.

[United Dixieland Territories]

After a bit of work, and speaking with the Archangel Conglomerate to make a properly "Dixie" bullet for wheelguns with moon clips and submachine gun use. Going big or going home is the best way to go about it per' the advice I was given. So .460 Griswold Brass now exists in pixelated form, though I cannot find a satisfactory projectile for it. 11.70mm at the mouth, x28mm for total brass length and 12.95mm at the base.

[Puzikas]

Thank you based Puz for the knowledge dump.

It was a bit wordy.

[Novorden]

Mag release is still FDE. It's like you don't even know how to accent.

You are going to have to explain that one to me.

omg liek y u copy me?

That's really nice though. It never ceases to amaze me how much detail you get from such a small scale.

If it helps it started life as a G3-esque rifle.

Thanks, I do like 1:1 although it can be a bit of a "jack of all trades master of none".

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

receiver is too small for your gun rly

Eh. The barrel and gas system are a bit thin (the piston by about 2mm), but everything else should be fine.

---

You are going to have to explain that one to me.

Colour choice. I do believe he's saying that the mag release should be a different colour, in order to contrast the overall FDE scheme.

If it helps it started life as a G3-esque rifle.

Thanks, I do like 1:1 although it can be a bit of a "jack of all trades master of none".

I'm really not bothered, tbh. It's clearly a further improvement on one of your older designs.

[Aqizithiuda]

Great sperg post, Puz. You managed to make a potentially dry and boring paper into an interesting and often amusing lecture.

[Levitius]

I have no doubt that in the 1,000+ posts on this thread airborne tactics have been discussed but I doubt I'll ever find where that took place so here it is:

My MT military is built for primarily 1st and 2nd strike capabilities with national guard and reserve type elements focusing on defense. With that image in mind, do airborne infantry tactics have a place on the modern battlefield? With most nations, even under developed ones, possessing sufficiently advanced anti-air capabilities it seems reckless and time consuming to have large planes flying low and slow to drop troops. Rapid sea and ground mobile units seems like a better use of resources... Thoughts?

*Hint- link to my military factbook in the signature line*

[Spirit of Hope]

I have no doubt that in the 1,000+ posts on this thread airborne tactics have been discussed but I doubt I'll ever find where that took place so here it is:

My MT military is built for primarily 1st and 2nd strike capabilities with national guard and reserve type elements focusing on defense. With that image in mind, do airborne infantry tactics have a place on the modern battlefield? With most nations, even under developed ones, possessing sufficiently advanced anti-air capabilities it seems reckless and time consuming to have large planes flying low and slow to drop troops. Rapid sea and ground mobile units seems like a better use of resources... Thoughts?

*Hint- link to my military factbook in the signature line*

Airborne units are still important, the easiest way to tell is because real nations still retain airborne troops. They allow you to rapidly insert a number of soldiers and equipment behind enemy lines where they can disrupt rear area elements of the enemy forces. This both directly damages the front line fighting capability of your enemy and requires they commit forces to fighting your airborne units that could otherwise fight on the front line.

The first thing to understand is that most nations on't have sufficient anti air capabilities, shoulder fired weapons aren't going to be a huge risk to your transports. To have capabilities to truly threaten your transports they are going to need more advanced capabilities, and those can be semi countered by carrying out Suppression of Enemy Air Defense missions (SEAD) alongside any air borne operation combined with planning routes such to avoid as much air defense as possible.

For the airborne assault your transports should be accompanied by both fighters/multi roles to defend against enemy aircraft but also aircraft equipped with anti radar weapons, which can be fired on any enemy radar, forcing them to shut off or be destroyed. Add in dedicated jamming and other ECM and while you will still suffer losses they won't be higher than what your forces can accomplish if used well.

EDIT: I would even argue that airborne troops have gained some advantage, transports aircraft are faster and larger, allowing for easier deployment of airborne troops. In addition the heavier capacity of transports allows the deployment of light AFV's alongside airborne troops.

This also doesn't cover the new role that helicopters have ushered in, usually called Air Assault, which can serve as an intermediary. It allows your troops to deploy faster to the target, though generally not as deep into enemy battle space. Helicopters also have the ability to carry heavy weapons that air mobile or airborne troops can not normally carry with them, providing a heavy punch during operations.

[Levitius]

Airborne units are still important, the easiest way to tell is because real nations still retain airborne troops. They allow you to rapidly insert a number of soldiers and equipment behind enemy lines where they can disrupt rear area elements of the enemy forces. This both directly damages the front line fighting capability of your enemy and requires they commit forces to fighting your airborne units that could otherwise fight on the front line.

The first thing to understand is that most nations on't have sufficient anti air capabilities, shoulder fired weapons aren't going to be a huge risk to your transports. To have capabilities to truly threaten your transports they are going to need more advanced capabilities, and those can be semi countered by carrying out Suppression of Enemy Air Defense missions (SEAD) alongside any air borne operation combined with planning routes such to avoid as much air defense as possible.

For the airborne assault your transports should be accompanied by both fighters/multi roles to defend against enemy aircraft but also aircraft equipped with anti radar weapons, which can be fired on any enemy radar, forcing them to shut off or be destroyed. Add in dedicated jamming and other ECM and while you will still suffer losses they won't be higher than what your forces can accomplish if used well.

EDIT: I would even argue that airborne troops have gained some advantage, transports aircraft are faster and larger, allowing for easier deployment of airborne troops. In addition the heavier capacity of transports allows the deployment of light AFV's alongside airborne troops.

This also doesn't cover the new role that helicopters have ushered in, usually called Air Assault, which can serve as an intermediary. It allows your troops to deploy faster to the target, though generally not as deep into enemy battle space. Helicopters also have the ability to carry heavy weapons that air mobile or airborne troops can not normally carry with them, providing a heavy punch during operations.

I'm actually an air assault soldier in the U.S Army so I'm familiar with those tactics and I've worked with PATRIOT so I understand ECMs, ARMs and the like. That's part of the reason I asked this question, the US Army is questioning our use of the airborne so I thought Levitius should do the same! You made a good point though and refresh some aspects that I had forgotten!

[Spreewerke]

Mag release is still FDE. It's like you don't even know how to accent.

You are going to have to explain that one to me.

I think the mag release being black in color would really accent the lower receiver just that much more.

[Gallia-]

receiver is too small for your gun rly

Eh. The barrel and gas system are a bit thin (the piston by about 2mm), but everything else should be fine.

they are not

you have zero room for a trigger so unless the lower receiver is just some pins to hold your breech loaded hand cannon together you dont actually have a gun

at least not a gun with a trigger

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

le Proto gat
How d'you figure? there should be more than enough space behind the bolt to manage a trigger group. The only issue I really see is that the bolt doesn't have a massive amount of room to travel.

[Gallia-]

http://s103.photobucket.com/user/swgabo ... 8.jpg.html

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Doesn't look much different, imo. Could you give me the dimensions of a trigger group, perhaps? I'm planning to redraw the carbine regardless, so I could easily work a proper trigger group in.

[Gallia-]

it would be easier if you just drew the trigger mechanism and put a box around it tbh

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

I don't know how big the pieces are. Nor do I know where to find proper dimensions.

Help me Gallia- chan, you're my only hope!

[Puzikas]

Great sperg post, Puz. You managed to make a potentially dry and boring paper into an interesting and often amusing lecture.

There was some stuff I wanted to cover that I couldn't shoehorn in because it was unrelated or just too much.

Part 3 will have all the wild and weird projects and the future of small arms in terminal effectivness. I don't know when I'll write that though.

[Gallia-]

I don't know how big the pieces are. Nor do I know where to find proper dimensions.

Help me Gallia- chan, you're my only hope!

http://imgur.com/a/u8lNZ
https://robrobinette.com/images/M16/M16Fire.jpg
http://www.quarterbore.com/images/ar15m16.gif

you should be able to figure out the rest because m16 is about as complicated as a repeating brick

[Novorden]

I will admit most of my rifles use the AUG mechanism as it the only one I know.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Vriendelijke bedankt

[Yukonastan]

I don't know how big the pieces are. Nor do I know where to find proper dimensions.

Help me Gallia- chan, you're my only hope!

Looks fine to me tbh, assuming that the rifle is striker-fired. Mech has a bit of Glock stuff in it for me.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Hey puz is there a significant difference in the wound channel for 7.62 light and heavy ball?

For the sake of argument say the target is at a comfortable middle ground for their intended ranges.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I realized on the way back from Five Guys that scenario wouldn't really be appropriate, so change that to firing at an identical target in each of their intended ranges.

[Puzikas]

Hey puz is there a significant difference in the wound channel for 7.62 light and heavy ball?

For the sake of argument say the target is at a comfortable middle ground for their intended ranges.

Well that depends on the ammunition actually.

The typical heavy ball load was either marginally longer than its standard brother, or was composed of different materials.

The heavy ball ammo generally would penetrate deeper than its standard mass equal, but this is inconsequential as both rounds generally had sufficent energy to totally penetrate a person. The longer heavy ball rounds were more terminally effective than their brothers if yaw occured; however, these rounds were more stable in the penetration of medium due to their higher mass and decreased resistance.

Otherwise they're basically identical except for the fact that the heavy ball is better at range and such.

[Immoren]

M/40 Tent stove is standard tent stove meant for heating up squad tent. It's top-fed multi-fuel stove, which ashes are removed from bottomhatch. Usual fuel is standard, non-crackling woodpieces, either brough with unit, or harvested nearby. Standard woodpieces are cut slightly shorter than stove, but it various thicknesses to adjust burn intensity and time. Stove is equipped with seven stovepipes, so that fluegasses can be directed out of the sleeping quarters.