Just found this quest. Given I love reading the HISTORY of firearm designs before they got used this look like it will be fun.

I am going to be useless for voting though - seriously I'm only on the second proper post and I'm lost on why some stuff if important over other stuff.
 
Just found this quest. Given I love reading the HISTORY of firearm designs before they got used this look like it will be fun.

I am going to be useless for voting though - seriously I'm only on the second proper post and I'm lost on why some stuff if important over other stuff.
Have a discord link--we discuss a lot of this stuff there so feel free to ask questions.
 
Just found this quest. Given I love reading the HISTORY of firearm designs before they got used this look like it will be fun.

I am going to be useless for voting though - seriously I'm only on the second proper post and I'm lost on why some stuff if important over other stuff.
Just pile in - don't worry. I have personally seen a roomful of supposed experts arguing whether a particular tactic used IRL was brilliant or stupid, so there is not exactly a One True Answer for you to get wrong (or Right).
 
Just pile in - don't worry. I have personally seen a roomful of supposed experts arguing whether a particular tactic used IRL was brilliant or stupid, so there is not exactly a One True Answer for you to get wrong (or Right).

I do remember posting in a debate about a new service rifle and it was pages of stuff on how barrel length affects terminal ballistics and the like.

Then I post (more or less): ... How important is this change when it requires to reissue a zillion service rifles and most people are killed by artillery/mortars/machine guns etc?

cause seriously they were talking about some small change in.. muzzle velocity or something.

... so what I'm saying is we should just make more artillery. : P
 
... so what I'm saying is we should just make more artillery. : P

Sadly the big guns are unable to produce breakthroughs in trench warfare. This broke the current view that guns were the answer to dug-in/fortified oppo.
They still are, but artillery commanders have fallen in love with behind the lines position (with good reason).
Battlefield artillery, capable of direct, self-guided fire on hardpoints has suddenly become very rare.
 
I do remember posting in a debate about a new service rifle and it was pages of stuff on how barrel length affects terminal ballistics and the like.

Then I post (more or less): ... How important is this change when it requires to reissue a zillion service rifles and most people are killed by artillery/mortars/machine guns etc?

cause seriously they were talking about some small change in.. muzzle velocity or something.

... so what I'm saying is we should just make more artillery. : P
"Is it as killy as it can be?" is very rarely the prime consideration of a military rifle.
Sadly the big guns are unable to produce breakthroughs in trench warfare. This broke the current view that guns were the answer to dug-in/fortified oppo.
They still are, but artillery commanders have fallen in love with behind the lines position (with good reason).
Battlefield artillery, capable of direct, self-guided fire on hardpoints has suddenly become very rare.
The problem was more getting the artillery (and the logistics for same) mobile enough to exploit breaks in the line. Basically the same calculus was the reasoning behind the French being out of position in the Battle of France two decades later.
 
The problem was more getting the artillery (and the logistics for same) mobile enough to exploit breaks in the line. Basically the same calculus was the reasoning behind the French being out of position in the Battle of France two decades later.

That too, and I hasten to add that everybody - infantry, artillery, you name it - had the same mobility, logistics, and C3 problems during this period.
The C3 problem for instance was the rationale behind the German 'stosstruppen', formations trained and encouraged to keep moving forward even and especially without orders.
It worked, sorta, like early tanks worked sorta, and IG and mortars worked sorta.
 
That too, and I hasten to add that everybody - infantry, artillery, you name it - had the same mobility, logistics, and C3 problems during this period.
The C3 problem for instance was the rationale behind the German 'stosstruppen', formations trained and encouraged to keep moving forward even and especially without orders.
It worked, sorta, like early tanks worked sorta, and IG and mortars worked sorta.

I thought the biggest issue was that logistics past the railhead reverted to something Napoleon would recognize. Attackers could create holes via tanks, strom troopers or sheer mass but could not exploit those holes on an operational level, or strategic. Defenders could more easily move forced to plug the hole.
 
I thought the biggest issue was that logistics past the railhead reverted to something Napoleon would recognize. Attackers could create holes via tanks, strom troopers or sheer mass but could not exploit those holes on an operational level, or strategic. Defenders could more easily move forced to plug the hole.
All true. Also (lies to children) AKA necessary simplification.
One disadvantage of education is that teachers MUST simplify, must give the main cause or most direct reason. You simply confuse children otherwise.
We are all conditioned to expect ... Problem. Caused by. Solved by. Next Lesson.
In fact WW1 commanders were facing simultaneous problems, each of which prevented breakthroughs by themselves, and none of which had simple answers.
Logistics was certainly one of them, probably in fact the main cause, which is why your teachers taught it to you.
But so were commanders carefully trained to Not go haring off at random to find an enemy to fight. They sat tight, did not move without orders, which came slooow with WW1 coms.

As slight digression my favorite lies to children is the compressibility of water.
Early education - you can compress anything with enough force.
High school - water is in-compressible so you can use it to measure gas volumes.
Post-grad - the Navy is funding a study on how the compressibility of water changes with depth, temp, and salinity.
 
Nah my education for WW1 was more 'machine guns and insdustrilzed warfare made defense too stong, had to wait for tanks to end the war... but everyone was tired as fuck by then anyway'

I'm on a phone right now so making a huge long post on the issues of ww1 and its causes over tactical, operational, strategic and politcal levels is a little too much for my fingers.
 
So I know it's been three weeks, but I've had to deal with some shit (my mother was in town for two weeks, I graduated, and my truck exploded being the high points in terms of productivity losses.)
Anyway, I'm calling the vote so I can finally start on Stage Two Part Two.

Incidentally, I'll probably do an aside on Werser takes on armored warfare before I get to anti-tank weapons. The Short version is probably going to be Tanks are unreliable, limited to the offense and are a temporary solution to a temporary problem and not worth future development, Armored Cars and artillery tractors are the future.
Adhoc vote count started by HanEmpire on May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM, finished with 41 posts and 20 votes.

  • [X] EVERYTHING???? EVERYTHINNNGGGG!!!!!!
    -[X] In light of the ideas proposed by members of the committee, there is a need seen for both newer hand grenades whether they be fragmentation, concussion, or incendiary, and also explosive/incendiary launchers. Given the varying needs of the infantryman, a man-portable crew serviced weapon to provide heavier support at longer range is desired ala Herzog Kaila's suggestion; provided it can be transported and operated by 2-3 men at most. In addition a closer ranged launcher used to directly support the assault is also desired. This closer ranged weapon may be stand alone, though something that can attach to the current service rifle would be preferred.
    -[X] Furthermore, given the issues with even full size artillery pieces in degrading and destroying some enemy forts, we would like to examine use of weapons such as an incendiary projector for use in burning out such entrenched enemy positions.
    [X] Plan Unicorn
    -[X] Incindiary Weapons Development Specifics
    --[X] Must be impact fuzed
    --[X] Must have at least 300ml of liquid or 100g of solid incendiary
    --[X] Must be compatable with a launcher
    --[X] May be hand-thrown
    -[X] Fragmentation Weapons Specifics
    --[X] May be impact or timed fuzed
    --[X] Must have at least 300g of explosive
    --[X] May be launcher compatable
    --[X] Must be hand-thrown
    -[X] Launcher Development Specifics
    --[X] May be an attachment to existing rifles
    --[X] May be a conversion of older weapon
    --[X] May be shoulder- or ground- fired
    --[X] May be new development
    --[X] Must have common launch mechanism for all grenade types
    --[X] Must be man-portable
    ---[X] May submit "Heavy Launcher" design using multiple pieces so long as remains team-portable.
    [X] Plan KISS
    -[X] Grenade
    --[X] Max weight 1kg
    --[X] Should have both impact and time fusing
    --[X] Should be capable of having a rod fitted for rifle launching
    --[X] A removable fragmentation sleeve to allow for both offensive and defensive use would be advantageous, but not essential
    -[X]Light Artillery Piece
    --[X] Should be man portable, each load being max 20kg
    --[X] Should be as quick as possible to set up and get into action
    --[X]Minimum 600 yard range indirect fire required
    -[X] Portable Launcher
    --[X] Look into making use of obsolete rifles already in storage for rod launching grenades
    [X] Plan Basket Case
    -[X] Hand Grenade
    --[X] May be impact or timed fused
    --[X] Must be capable of being hand thrown, with a maximum weight of 750 grams
    --[X] Compatibility with launchers is advantageous.
    -[X] Flame Projector
    --[X] Device must project a stream of burning fuel at least 15m
    --[X] Device must hold at least 7 liters of fuel
    --[X] Device must weight at most 40kg fully loaded.
    -[X] Light Artillery
    --[X] Device must be able to launch impact fuzed shells weighing no less than 4kg, no less than 500m.
    --[X] Device must be capable of firing both explosive and incendiary shells.
    --[X] Device should weigh at most 50kg, and be capable of disassembly into pieces that are man portable.
    --[X] Indirect-fire capability is a must.
    -[X] Explosive Projector
    --[X] Device must launch explosive rocket, bomb, grenade or shell a distance of 75m
    --[X] A device that is a clip on to existing rifles, or uses the stocks of unconverted, obsolescent rifles in the state armories will be preferred.
    --[X] May be shoulder- or ground- fired
    --[X] Must have common launch mechanism for all ammunition types
    --[X] Must be man-portable
 
[X] EVERYTHING???? EVERYTHINNNGGGG!!!!!!
-[X] In light of the ideas proposed by members of the committee, there is a need seen for both newer hand grenades whether they be fragmentation, concussion, or incendiary, and also explosive/incendiary launchers. Given the varying needs of the infantryman, a man-portable crew serviced weapon to provide heavier support at longer range is desired ala Herzog Kaila's suggestion; provided it can be transported and operated by 2-3 men at most. In addition a closer ranged launcher used to directly support the assault is also desired. This closer ranged weapon may be stand alone, though something that can attach to the current service rifle would be preferred.
-[X] Furthermore, given the issues with even full size artillery pieces in degrading and destroying some enemy forts, we would like to examine use of weapons such as an incendiary projector for use in burning out such entrenched enemy positions.

Going as a wide as possible to capture as much capability as possible may be a mistake, but I think it's worth the risks and also GRENADE LAUNCHERS
 
ok caught up .. I want to make my own version of the everything vote with more details but I don't have time at the moment for research!

[X] EVERYTHING???? EVERYTHINNNGGGG!!!!!!
 
Going as a wide as possible to capture as much capability as possible may be a mistake, but I think it's worth the risks and also GRENADE LAUNCHERS
ok caught up .. I want to make my own version of the everything vote with more details but I don't have time at the moment for research!
I already called the vote last night. You're just running up the vote for the winning option at this point.
 
Infantry Support Weapons Commission Stage Two Part Two or; the quest lives.
With the decision made to look at literally everything, there are further decisions to make.

Oberleutnant M. Zaslovski is insistent that any new system should be no heavier than a heavy machine gun (ideally a support weapon should be as light as and as mobile as a light machine gun, but Zaslovski admits this might be unrealistic) and is extremely resistant to the idea of a liquid fueled incendiary system on the battlefield, especially one requiring a powered pump. Zaslovski absolutely wants thermite grenades for raiding parties though, and thinks a good grenade should be either the traditional shape and slightly lighter than the present 500g specification, or Mil shaped and weigh enough to really get some distance.

Herceg Kaila of Kapan doesn't really have an opinion on individually portable systems, but thinks a light gun weighing under 150kg with an effective firing range of at least 1km should be easy enough for three men to manhandle on the battlefield while still having the range to be realistically immune to anything smaller than a heavy machine gun. Incendiary, High Explosive and gas shells should be produced for the weapon. Herceg Kaila also thinks a man portable flamethrower might have some use, but anything requiring a powered pump instead of being already pressurized should not be considered, and anything that would require a crew or extensive preparations is worse than useless.

Linienschiffsleutnant Harel Cseh thinks a light artillery piece might be promising post war, but what matters right now is mobility. As a result, he argues that any system other than a hand grenade that the commission looks at should either attach to an existing rifle or carbine (and thus make said rifle actually useful in trench warfare,) or be man portable without having to be broken down (ideally weighing less than 13kg, or comparable to a light machine gun.) Incendiary weapons may be heavier, but should still be strictly man portable. Regardless any system used should still be light enough that the operator might still carry a pistol, ammunition and a few hand grenades.

Főhadnagy Ferdinand Kaldhoff is coming around to a grenade exceeding 400g but no more than 800, and wants something easy to train with. At a minimum, a grenade should be something that can easily be thrown ten meters. Kaldhoff is additionally willing to bet that a canvas and wire wrapped hose (like would be used in a decontamination sprayer or a bug burner at a quarantine station) will be strong enough to survive counter battery fire, so a heavier crew served flamethrower might be practical.

Fan Dogali would have a decent opinion at the moment, but he's rather busy talking about the possibilities of aluminum powder for increased yields and this new thing called Hexogen, plus he's busy working on a proper formula to test relative effectiveness of hand grenade fillings.

SR Tidur doesn't like the idea of introducing a new piece of heavy artillery, and again, would like to restate that anything selected should be man portable and cheap to produce. Tidur also thinks that using incendiary decontamination equipment on a battlefield is dangerous, irresponsible and impractical.

For the purposes of keeping the GM sane, the competition will be split into three categories, with their own requirements. Once again, it's vote by plan.
[ ] Hand Grenades
[ ] Rifle Grenades and Light Artillery
[ ] Pressurized Incendiary Devices
 
This for testing or another 'parameters to request things within' vote? Because I thought the last turn we defined a lot of this stuff.
Edit: No it didn't really, but I can't write anything up yet.
 
[X] Plan Guns Can Wait
-[X]Rifle Grenades and Light Artillery
--[X] Disregard light field guns.
--[X] Develop a light trench mortar that can be carried by no more than three men. If two men can carry the whole set up, that would be ideal.
---[X] Bore should be no greater than 81mm.
---[X] Weapon must be capable of indirect fire
---[X] Should be capable of firing an explosive projectile up to 5kg in weight
---[X] Should have a firing range of between 700 and 1000 meters
--[X] Develop a grenade thrower that can be fitted to the current rifle with minimal modification to existing weapons. Some form of adaptor that can be attached to current rifles would be ideal.
---[X] This grenade thrower or granatenwerfer as you might call it, should fire a projectile no heavier than 1kg; ideally the projectile should be roughly the size of a hand grenade so they're easy to carry.
---[X] This attachment should be no more than 2kg in weight in order to reduce the load on infantrymen.
 
Back
Top