Remove ads

Small Arms Commission Quest

Reader mode
[X] Plan Banana Split

globalwarmth said:
First step in that direction
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not really. This whole idea of "if we have an automatic rifle or select-fire gun it will lead to the development of the assault rifle 'early'" is fundamentally flawed. There were plenty of automatic rifles in WW1 and this didn't happen. There were even rifles used, in the thousands, which were chambered for cartridges lighter than the standard rifle rounds but more powerful than pistol rounds, with detachable magazines, and capable of fully automatic fire. These... lead to precisely zero development of assault rifles.
 
7734 said:
The thing is, testing a machine gun for accuracy et all is hard, and everything else is dependant on tripod and sights. I'm perfectly happy with how trials were run, honestly, but we still need to consider the realities of assaulting fortified and prepared positions; something that has barely changed in over a hundred years.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That seems... overly simplistic? Infantry doctrine in WW1 is not the same as in WW2, which is not the same as infantry doctrine in modern times.

Michael Lewis said:
@Oksbad, just so you know: the set up issue for the Handel can be addressed with modifications.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Gah, now I want to pass them all, but should cut at least one. Let me consider this.
 
Last edited:
Oksbad said:
Gah, now I want to pass them all, but should cut at least one. Let me consider this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I suggest cutting the heavy and seeing if we can stick the light one on a tripod. the stock and pistol grip gives it much more flexibility, and One Machinegun to Rule Them All seems like a good direction to go down if we want to be exploring GPMGs later on.
 
Oksbad said:
That seems... overly simplistic? Infantry doctrine in WW1 is not the same as in WW2, which is not the same as infantry doctrine in modern times.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fortunately, I have sources!

On WWI trench assault doctrine and evolution therof: odds required for historical armies to challenge modern ones. | Page 5

On actually assaulting a trench network, modern day: odds required for historical armies to challenge modern ones. | Page 5

The principals are still the same from the infantry standpoint: blast the shit out of it with artillery, move in as fast as you fucking can, spray bullets everywhere, when in doubt grenade, and at the end you're dead, or a wounded hero.

Edit: And no, a MG isn't artillery. Artillery is anything that goes boom when it arrives at destination; MG are for suppressing inbound support vectors for counterattack.
 
Last edited:
If the Handel variants are essentially the same gun would it be feasible to adopt both variants + one additional MG without throwing a wrench into logistics?
 
Arcus said:
If the Handel variants are essentially the same gun would it be feasible to adopt both variants + one additional MG without throwing a wrench into logistics?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not really. As it is you're only really able to decide for the Landsturms and the GA anyway, and the Seebattaillone do what they want. The Seebattaillone will probably only be buying like 96 guns plus training guns and spares anyway.

7734 said:
Its 190- something. We're already doing good to have a unified service rifle.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, you've got a rifle, a couple carbines, the Seebattaillone have a short rifle etc. You've only got one action though.
 
Why on Earth would we want a WW1-era HMG that cannot do sustained fire?:eyebrow:

Are we going to be selecting a falling block single shot when we get to the automatic rifle competition?
 
Ironanvil1 said:
Why on Earth would we want a WW1-era HMG that cannot do sustained fire?:eyebrow:

Are we going to be selecting a falling block single shot when we get to the automatic rifle competition?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Because honestly if you're trying to paint a postal code in lead you're doing it wrong. I'm picking a weapon that leads to more tech development, and useful systems down the line; you're picking a weapon that does the same shit as the last one, now with more than twenty minutes of design put into cleaning up the rough edges.
 
7734 said:
Because honestly if you're trying to paint a postal code in lead you're doing it wrong. I'm picking a weapon that leads to more tech development, and useful systems down the line; you're picking a weapon that does the same shit as the last one, now with more than twenty minutes of design put into cleaning up the rough edges.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're also using future knowledge, which we realistically wouldn't have.
 
Chronologist said:
You're also using future knowledge, which we realistically wouldn't have.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If the author didn't expect me to bring the entire might of my research and information base to bear on this quest, he'd never have called me up and said "I need some crazy shit and one competent guy" now wouldn't he? Because that's basically how I found out this was a thing.
 
7734 said:
If the author didn't expect me to bring the entire might of my research and information base to bear on this quest, he'd never have called me up and said "I need some crazy shit and one competent guy" now wouldn't he? Because that's basically how I found out this was a thing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...



There's a distinct difference between using your knowledge of firearms / firearm history to guide your choices and going "I'm going to make a choice based on what I think we want in thirty years instead of what, realistically, our country would be thinking about needing now."
 
Chronologist said:
There's a distinct difference between using your knowledge of firearms / firearm history to guide your choices and going "I'm going to make a choice based on what I think we want in thirty years instead of what, realistically, our country would be thinking about needing now."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is more "I'm going to make a choice based on what has the greatest adaptability five years from now" but yes, I'm quite deliberately future-proofing most of our options, or making sure everything is lowest common denominator so it can't get screwed up. The starter bullet is a pretty good example: not the bleeding edge of ballistics, but a nice safe choice to design around and very compatible with other systems. A rimless 6.5mm bullet on 8mm case might have been objectively more effective, but then everyone would need to figure out push-through feed systems on their machine guns and develop kick extractors for rifles, both of which are extra work and easy to screw up.
 
7734 said:
Because honestly if you're trying to paint a postal code in lead you're doing it wrong. I'm picking a weapon that leads to more tech development, and useful systems down the line; you're picking a weapon that does the same shit as the last one, now with more than twenty minutes of design put into cleaning up the rough edges.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And you're selecting a gun for a style of war decades in the future, rather than the one the setting will be fighting real soon now, with extreme levels of troop density and static fortification. You could give them JDAMs and they'd be really useful "down the line", but pretty damn pointless for WW1.
 
Ironanvil1 said:
And you're selecting a gun for a style of war decades in the future, rather than the one the setting will be fighting real soon now, with extreme levels of troop density and static fortification. You could give them JDAMs and they'd be really useful "down the line", but pretty damn pointless for WW1.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not really. I'm selecting a gun we can mount onto airplanes, tanks, armored cars, as light flak, on boats, in trains, tied to the side of a horse, in a motorcycle sidecar, just about anywhere.

As for the static nature of the coming War, I have to chuckle. If we were in Yurop (which we're not) then we'd be handling the Italian front, which only an utter moron would attack into; the Serbian front, which we'd need to go into from Croatia and would be mostly composed of moving around strong points and blasting them until there's only craters left; and the Russian front which can be easily summised as Bait and Switch: The Campaign.

As for JDAMs? You're telling me a five hundred pound bomb that corrects for wind drift isn't useful? Excuse me?
 
7734 said:
Not really. I'm selecting a gun we can mount onto airplanes, tanks, armored cars, as light flak, on boats, in trains, tied to the side of a horse, in a motorcycle sidecar, just about anywhere.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So, a Vickers gun then.
As for the static nature of the coming War, I have to chuckle. If we were in Yurop (which we're not) then we'd be handling the Italian front, which only an utter moron would attack into; the Serbian front, which we'd need to go into from Croatia and would be mostly composed of moving around strong points and blasting them until there's only craters left; and the Russian front which can be easily summised as Bait and Switch: The Campaign.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mobile warfare would be why we're selecting a LMG. That doesn't negate the need for a HMG.
As for JDAMs? You're telling me a five hundred pound bomb that corrects for wind drift isn't useful? Excuse me?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In the context of WW1, certainly. Or are we doing the satellite selection commission later on?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top