East Africa 1930: An ORBAT Quest

Speaking of Weapons Procurement, are we going for a dedicated anti-tank gun? I remember them not being of much use. But then again rifles of that caliber could also be used in anti-material roles.
I think we could consider doing something where we take our existing Arisakas and scale them up to use the 13.2 as a domestic AT rifle since the only other option I'm aware of in 1933 is the Solothurn. However, given that we already have machine guns in 13.2, I'm not sure it's worth it?
We honestly are kinda limited by choice, as all designs will be based off the Carden Loyd tankette. We could get the polish variant which has an improved engine and slightly better armour, the TKS or the Japanese variants which were the Type 94 tankette (though this one isn't available for two years) and Type 92 armoured car (its not a car).

I'm doubtful of the British selling us a few, same with the Italians.
I mean, there's hopefully be some Renault FTs kicking around somewhere that we could pick up. This would be for things like training drivers and performing extremely basic maneuvers, spending money on something that's literally coming out in whatever the current year is wouldn't be a good idea.

I wouldn't rule the British or Italians out, we saw submissions from a lot of countries for the rifle trials.
We should also prepare doctrine for dealing with chemical weapons the Italians if I recall used them in Ethiopia.
The write-in for the new Type 51 uniform included a gas mask as part of the kit, but I'm not sure if that actually got purchased (it was sorta pushing the "uniform" aspect), and training to deal with gas in general would be good.
Well, producing pistols is less ambitious than an early cheapo SMG, but as you've pointed out, there is historically more demand for pistols than supply can fill. It reminds me of the Russian Obrez 'pistol' that's just a sawed-down Mosin-Nagant...

I'm willing to continue with a janky project for a 6.5mm pistol bullet so we can use segments of rifle barrel for our pistols, I think that would be funny as hell.
Is it? Locked-breech weapons are inherently more difficult to make than straight blowback, and my impression was that producing pistols was more ambitious than a SMG.
 
Last edited:
Is it? Locked-breech weapons are inherently more difficult to make than straight blowback, and my impression was that producing pistols was more ambitious than a SMG.
Can you explain why a pistol would be more ambitious then a SMG? Even if we can't make a semi-auto pistol in a reasonable timeframe I'm sure we could figure out a revolver as a stopgap measure.
 
Can you explain why a pistol would be more ambitious then a SMG? Even if we can't make a semi-auto pistol in a reasonable timeframe I'm sure we could figure out a revolver as a stopgap measure.
So this is very much my limited understanding, and extrapolating from what I know about larger weapons. I am, probably, wrong.
Also, a revolver would be more simple; that is indeed true. I hadn't been considering revolvers.

Anyhow, as far as I'm aware most semi-auto pistols in this period that fire a "powerful" round use a locked breech of some sort, usually short recoil. This means your pistol needs to have:
  • Some way for the barrel to recoil separate from the grip and fire control group and then return to proper alignment when it's in battery
  • Locking surfaces, on both the bolt and the barrel (or some extension of it) which are capable of, by themselves, holding the breech closed until a safe pressure is reached; these need to be relatively well manufactured because if they don't lock up in a consistent manner, the gun jams or worse
  • A spring to close the bolt
  • Since pistols are usually closed bolt, a separate firing pin with its own spring inside the bolt
  • The fire control group, which normally includes not only the trigger/sear but also a disconnector to prevent it from running away in full-auto like it would want to do otherwise and often a moving hammer to hit the firing pin
  • The magazine
The two big sources of complexity are the locking mechanism, which necessitates several moving parts that need to be machined to tight tolerances and out of strong material so that it keeps the breech closed until you want it to open, then smoothly and reliably opens; and the moving firing pin, which necessitates a separate, small spring, as well as the added complexity of the fire control group trying to interact with something that's supposed to be on the inside of the bolt and the extra moving parts/machining steps this requires.

Meanwhile, a straight-blowback SMG with a fixed firing pin is:
  • barrel and chamber, which are fixed in place and don't need to move
  • chunk of steel for the bolt that moves backwards slowly simply because it's heavy and has a firing pin that's fixed in place (or just a raised bump)*
  • spring to push the bolt forwards again after it got pushed backwards
  • trigger and sear to hold the bolt open until you want to shoot
  • magazine (this bit is tricky to get right in both cases, although slightly harder here due to the higher rate of fire)
  • toob to cover it all
And that's about it. If you exclude the bullets, the bare minimum SMG has four moving parts (trigger, sear - the thing between the trigger and the bolt, some sort of safety latch, and the bolt). Three of those are already things we have experience manufacturing for our rifles and light machine guns, and the fourth is a matter of purchasing a single SMG of your choice from abroad, measuring its bolt and chamber somewhat accurately, and then machining a lump of bar stock until it looks and weighs the same. Yeah, high rates of fire do require a bit of care and reinforcing parts that are found to break in testing, but if things are getting super complex, that points to a deeper issue - ideally it should be as simple as possible.

Someone mentioned the Owen gun upthread, and that's an example of a teenager deciding he wanted to make a SMG and building one in his garage. Sure, it had to be tweaked by a pair of engineers to get it to work reliably enough for widespread service, but an excellent gun came out the other end. From what I gather, most of the reliability factors involved in a SMG are how the bolt and magazine interact, and that's a case where we could just steal someone else's design and probably not face much of an issue.

* I realized I omitted ejectors and extractors from this, but one's a metal stud on the receiver, and the other one is a piece of bent spring steel that gets press fit into the bolt, and they're common parts to pistols, SMGs, and rifles anyways. Likewise, I'm ignoring the feed ramp that extends from the chamber, because that's a common feature on basically everything in this kind of role.

Edit 2: this is also not talking about straight blowback pistols, because scaling up a blowback pistol to take, say, 9 mm ammo and removing the semi-auto disconnect turns it into an underbuilt submachine gun.
 
Last edited:
The safety catch is a loop of string that holds the bolt closed.

Legitimate question. What's the opinion on field guns for AT work? I ask because they have a longer shelf life than AT rifles and if we ever get armor they have some transferable lessons.
Definitely an important secondary role for field artillery and they could be very good indeed, but it depends on the gun and ammunition.

The French 75 in particular... it seems that the gun itself is excellent, but the carriage wasn't modernised until it was too late.
The Japanese will have a high-velocity 75 but never built enough of it even for themselves.
Skoda might have something? Not sure.
Related to that, opinions on if it's possible to have an anti-air gun for anti-tank work or the opposite?
There's a lot of crossover between heavy AA guns and AT guns ballistically but the actual mountings are another story.

I think a bunch of countries around this time were trying to make a 'universal' gun and carriage that could do all three roles of field gun and AT gun and AA gun, but it never quite panned out. Too many compromises.

AFAIK it goes something like this:
Field Guns:
+ land carriage, intended to be moved around and fired at ground targets
+ usually have gun shields
- often fairly low velocity

Medium AA Guns:
+ high velocity
- not usually fitted with gun shields
- high-angle mountings mean they're tall targets, hard to conceal, and sometimes may not be able to depress enough to hit ground targets
- typically heavy and not very portable
- expensive

In either case AP ammo may not be available.

Finally, we have The Funni Option (stealing the secondary 12 pounders off of the Chikuma and asking the Japanese please sir may we have some more):
+ historically, these were adapted for land service and anti-aircraft roles
+ high velocity
+ we already have some and can probably get more as obsolete surplus
+ if we can get AP ammo it will probably go through an FT lengthwise
+ would remind the Carabinavy who the senior service is (a vital task which must be performed as often as possible)
- not sure if they actually made AP ammo for these
- not sure if the ammunition was two-piece
- would need to develop a brand new modern carriage from scratch
- big heavy chunky gun
- would allow the mud-eaters to reach above their station (anything more complex than a shovel rightfully belongs to the Navy)
 
Last edited:
For the sort of thing we're doing, 75mm is proabably a good caliber. Some French 75s on modernized carriages should be sufficent for our little army. Once WW2 starts, we can jus get American lend-lease.
 
The safety catch is a loop of string that holds the bolt closed.
Technically a moving part, still. But yeah, that's really all you need - something that locks the bolt to the rear. Ideally we'd have it be some sort of twist-release in the same position as the Arisaka's for improved ergonomics, but it's still incredibly simple
Definitely an important secondary role for field artillery and they could be very good indeed, but it depends on the gun and ammunition.

The French 75 in particular... it seems that the gun itself is excellent, but the carriage wasn't modernised until it was too late.
The Japanese will have a high-velocity 75 but never built enough of it even for themselves.
Skoda might have something? Not sure.
The French 75 is excellent aside from the carriage, as you said. The US had an improved version as the M1897 on M2 carriage, for example, and kept it around until replaced by 105 mm howitzers during the war; spare guns were used for tank destroyer units. The Germans also made an anti-tank variant out of captured guns.

Skoda has the 8 cm kanon vz. 28 and 30, which attempt to lump AA and field gun into a single piece. If we ignore the relatively mediocre AA performance, it seems comparable to the Mle 1897. There's also the Soviet 76 mm divisional gun M1902/30, which fills a similar niche (and probably some other options as well).

I don't think the Japanese gun would be a poor choice, but if they're production bottlenecked, they may not be able to fulfil orders for us...

With all that said, field guns are probably yet another thing we need to purchase, separate from battalion level artillery and regimental howitzers. It might be better to focus on arguably more critical lighter artillery and getting trained up, and then do those purchases later.
There's a lot of crossover between heavy AA guns and AT guns ballistically but the actual mountings are another story.

I think a bunch of countries around this time were trying to make a 'universal' gun and carriage that could do all three roles of field gun and AT gun and AA gun, but it never quite panned out. Too many compromises.
It sorta shows up later with the Soviet 85 (combining all three roles, albeit on different mountings) and the German 88 (combining AT and AA), but those are way heavier than what we could reasonably operate IMO.
Finally, we have The Funni Option (stealing the secondary 12 pounders off of the Chikuma and asking the Japanese please sir may we have some more):
+ historically, these were adapted for land service and anti-aircraft roles
+ high velocity
+ we already have some and can probably get more as obsolete surplus
+ if we can get AP ammo it will probably go through an FT lengthwise
+ would remind the Carabinavy who the senior service is (a vital task which must be performed as often as possible)
- not sure if they actually made AP ammo for these
- not sure if the ammunition was two-piece
- would need to develop a brand new modern carriage from scratch
- big heavy chunky gun
- would allow the mud-eaters to reach above their station (anything more complex than a shovel rightfully belongs to the Navy)
I enthusiastically endorse this idea. It'd combine well with "take the 6" guns off her and use them for a coastal battery to defend Kismayo".
That said, no, there never was an AP shell (although I'm pretty sure a standard 76.2 mm AP shell could be fired from them), the ammunition used by the Japanese was semi-fixed (the Italians had fixed ammo), and the screw breech design is not exactly modern. IMO, when it comes time to do this, we should use them as AA guns to protect Bur Gaabo and Kismayo; making a new HA pedestal mounting should be possible for our steel industry to manage since the gun is already capable of doing it.
 
We honestly are kinda limited by choice, as all designs will be based off the Carden Loyd tankette. We could get the polish variant which has an improved engine and slightly better armour, the TKS or the Japanese variants which were the Type 94 tankette (though this one isn't available for two years) and Type 92 armoured car (its not a car).

I'm doubtful of the British selling us a few, same with the Italians.

If somehow Brits would be open to selling tanks, wouldn't the best choice be Vickers 6-ton? it's probably best commercially available one at the moment.
Reewiin's military attache should also be able to look at them first-hand in the Chaco war.
 
[X] Plan: Training Infrastructure

Skoda has the 8 cm kanon vz. 28 and 30, which attempt to lump AA and field gun into a single piece. If we ignore the relatively mediocre AA performance, it seems comparable to the Mle 1897.
One of the benefits brought up about the 8 and 10cm Skoda pieces earlier in the thread was that they weren't just trying to combine field artillery with an AA gun, but also make it a mountain gun as well. While it wasn't that good at the former, supposedly the modifications made to allow it to break down into three pieces for easier horse-drawn transport for the latter did well enough, which could play well with us putting a bunch of effort into increasing our horse logistics.

Hardly revolutionary, but, if it's too simple to get wrong, and could be easily achieved... I am supportive of it. We aren't short on suitable steel.
I know it's probably not worth it compared to a conventional double action since it will throw the whole "less complex" benefit out the window, but I can't help but think it would be fun to make a domestic semi-auto revolver design just because of how few there are.
 
If somehow Brits would be open to selling tanks, wouldn't the best choice be Vickers 6-ton? it's probably best commercially available one at the moment.
It would yes but the issue I see with them is that they are far more expensive than a tankette would be and we don't need the perfect tank to start our tank corps, we could later reuse the tankettes as reconnaissance vehicles.

Honestly if we want a Vickers six ton, we could maybe get the Japanese copy of the ha-go? It'd come with the downsides of being a bit shit at anti tank work though.
 
I think we could consider doing something where we take our existing Arisakas and scale them up to use the 13.2 as a domestic AT rifle since the only other option I'm aware of in 1933 is the Solothurn. However, given that we already have machine guns in 13.2, I'm not sure it's worth it?
It is, because a scaled up rifle, even if it weighs in the area of 20 pounds, is still way, waaayyy more portable than a heavy machine gun with its carriage, ammunition, and the amount of crew needed to operate it. That being said:
Definitely an important secondary role for field artillery and they could be very good indeed, but it depends on the gun and ammunition.

The French 75 in particular... it seems that the gun itself is excellent, but the carriage wasn't modernized until it was too late.
The Japanese will have a high-velocity 75 but never built enough of it even for themselves.
Skoda might have something? Not sure.
We don't have to go for something in 75mm. Most countries during this time period in fact fielded something around 37mm, which while light by the time of hostilities, is definitely applicable to our situation. Though for this one I would say splurge and go for something around 40-57mm, as they stay relevant longer and have much better performance. We're kind of in the situation where, while we're poor as a country, we can't really be cheap either.
Edit:
On the topic of pistols; We're in the unique situation where we could design a revolver based around our rifle cartridge. It would not be pleasant to shoot for any person, but 6.5x50mm is a Semi-rimmed cartridge (which is a big help compared to rimless for extraction), and relatively tiny compared to other rifle calibers of the period. If push comes to shove, an overbuilt, 5-7 shot revolver with the option for a stocked carbine version is definitely something we could design.
 
Last edited:
I should point out, for the foreseeable future, our enemies are either other african states or the italians. We need to gear towards that. Once WW2 starts, we can rely on lend -lease.
 
We don't have to go for something in 75mm. Most countries during this time period in fact fielded something around 37mm, which while light by the time of hostilities, is definitely applicable to our caliber. Though for this one I would say splurge and go for something around 40-57mm, as they stay relevant longer and have much better performance. We're kind of in the situation where, while we're poor as a country, we can't really be cheap either.

On the other hand 75-76mm could act as both antitanks and field guns, while 37-57mm not really. Which is why 75mm is tempting (though admittedly difficult)

On yet other hand 37mm are much more mobile. Which probably would be more important consideration here, considering geography. Also since our current neighboring tank is a tankette, both army and government would consider 75mm an overkill?
Although repurposing old naval guns is really funny idea.

It would yes but the issue I see with them is that they are far more expensive than a tankette would be and we don't need the perfect tank to start our tank corps, we could later reuse the tankettes as reconnaissance vehicles.

Honestly if we want a Vickers six ton, we could maybe get the Japanese copy of the ha-go? It'd come with the downsides of being a bit shit at anti tank work though.

Yeah, they are expensive, that's fair.

(It probably would be posible to turn ha-go into an open-topped antitank, marder-style, "when the time would come")
 
Last edited:
We don't have to go for something in 75mm. Most countries during this time period in fact fielded something around 37mm
I've mostly been shilling the French 75mm as it'd be a great artillery piece and a pretty good anti tank option that wouldn't break our finances.

Once WW2 starts, we can rely on lend -lease.
If we side with the Allies, it isn't really set in stone and things could go horribly for us, we might even be forced to side with the Axis if the British preemptively invade us.
 
It would yes but the issue I see with them is that they are far more expensive than a tankette would be and we don't need the perfect tank to start our tank corps, we could later reuse the tankettes as reconnaissance vehicles.

Honestly if we want a Vickers six ton, we could maybe get the Japanese copy of the ha-go? It'd come with the downsides of being a bit shit at anti tank work though.
Again, I'm telling you guys, Renault FT or equivalent off of UsedCombatCars.com.
  • Almost certainly the cheapest tracked vehicle we can procure
  • Even if we have no idea what type of tank would be optimal (as a cursed thought, we could probably get by with a casemate assault gun), we can't go wrong with buying the cheapest possible option for training
  • Teaches us valuable things like "tanks are useful", "these are the qualities of a good tank for Reewiin", "fuck it's difficult to command a tank, load the gun, and aim the gun all at the same time, maybe we should look for a two-person turret in our next tank", and "it is hard to see what is going on while inside a tank, add lots of tiny windows (but make sure you can't shoot through said windows)"
  • Teaches our crews valuable things like "how to drive"; will remain useful for quite a while as a way to teach crews how to drive even if their combat capabilities are useless.
Somebody's gotta be selling them.

As for the Ha-Go, in my ideal world we buy Ha-Go automotive components from the Japanese, a two-man turret from someone else (Sweden? Czechoslovakia?) and put them into a domestically-produced hull (since that's probably the thing we'd be most able to produce on our own, having heavy industry and iron mines but no engine manufacturing or precision machinery). The air-cooled diesel would be pretty optimal for our use cases, and the turret on the Vickers 6-ton is fixable if we don't get sunk cost'ed into adopting an incredibly undersized turret ring (as evidenced by the T-26s having larger turrets). Alternatively, it just popped into my head that Reewiin might be a good environment for casemate assault guns/TDs...

It is, because a scaled up rifle, even if it weighs in the area of 20 pounds, is still way, waaayyy more portable than a heavy machine gun with its carriage, ammunition, and the amount of crew needed to operate it. That being said:

We don't have to go for something in 75mm. Most countries during this time period in fact fielded something around 37mm, which while light by the time of hostilities, is definitely applicable to our situation. Though for this one I would say splurge and go for something around 40-57mm, as they stay relevant longer and have much better performance. We're kind of in the situation where, while we're poor as a country, we can't really be cheap either.
Edit:
On the topic of pistols; We're in the unique situation where we could design a revolver based around our rifle cartridge. It would not be pleasant to shoot for any person, but 6.5x50mm is a Semi-rimmed cartridge (which is a big help compared to rimless for extraction), and relatively tiny compared to other rifle calibers of the period. If push comes to shove, an overbuilt, 5-7 shot revolver with the option for a stocked carbine version is definitely something we could design.
We have to consider the opportunity cost of it, though. If I could snap my fingers and make it happen, I'd equip every company with a weapons platoon that has a mix of Type 3 MMGs and a 13.2 mm bolt-action AT rifle. However, we may not have the resources to do that, especially because we'll be asking a lot of the armament industry in the short term (reverse engineering the Type 3, expanding Arisaka production, AND scaling up the Arisaka to fire 13.2x99 is a lot to ask for).

40 mm AT guns are getting into proper artillery that requires horses and stuff to move around. I'd not be averse to us adopting a long 57 right on the eve of war since that should pop anything we could hypothetically run into, but again, is it a priority, especially given the tanks available in [currentyear]?

I'd be very concerned about the gas seal on a 6.5x50 revolver, especially when produced to low tolerances to drive costs down.

Or more frustrating scenario, our President and Parliament would disregard our advise not to side with the Axis (due to really unfortunate roll heh)
If the parliament wishes for us to emulate Japan, then it is only proper that the ordnance board follows their request in adopting the most excellent Japanese tradition of assassinating government officials who tell us things we don't like.
 
I've mostly been shilling the French 75mm as it'd be a great artillery piece and a pretty good anti tank option that wouldn't break our finances.
The thing with going for the French 75mm, is that they're going to be a bit overkill for our AT uses and it would cause issues with procurement. Because we could probably reasonably get 1.5-2 smaller caliber cannons and ammunition for the price of one of the 75mm guns and ammo. It is definitely doable, especially since it was basically THE surplus cannon, just would still be difficult to arm 2 different types of specialists with it.
Edit;
C_Z said:
We have to consider the opportunity cost of it, though. If I could snap my fingers and make it happen, I'd equip every company with a weapons platoon that has a mix of Type 3 MMGs and a 13.2 mm bolt-action AT rifle. However, we may not have the resources to do that, especially because we'll be asking a lot of the armament industry in the short term (reverse engineering the Type 3, expanding Arisaka production, AND scaling up the Arisaka to fire 13.2x99 is a lot to ask for).

Oh I wasn't saying we should do it right now, no expense spared. Was just saying that there are merits to a rifle capable of firing the caliber.
C_Z said:
40 mm AT guns are getting into proper artillery that requires horses and stuff to move around. I'd not be averse to us adopting a long 57 right on the eve of war since that should pop anything we could hypothetically run into, but again, is it a priority, especially given the tanks available in [currentyear]?

Like I said, personal preference. Hell, for our situation the 37mm everyone else uses is perfectly adequate until probably late war, while being much more portable than even a 40 mil. Was just stating personal preference because of the longevity of the calibers involved.
C_Z said:
I'd be very concerned about the gas seal on a 6.5x50 revolver, especially when produced to low tolerances to drive costs down.

Why would it be produced to low tolerances? And besides, revolvers by their very nature can be a bit more loose on gas tolerances than any other type of firearm, considering most have a small open air gap between where the cylinder lines up with the barrel anyway.
 
Last edited:
Even if we have no idea what type of tank would be optimal (as a cursed thought, we could probably get by with a casemate assault gun)
I have an ingenuous idea, make the FT-17 even more cramped and uncomfortable by cramming in something like a 57mm or 75mm in there. The FT-75 BS was real and would totally work.

Joking aside, the FT-17 would actually be the perfect starting vehicle for our future armoured core, dunno how I slept on it till now.

If the parliament wishes for us to emulate Japan, then it is only proper that the ordnance board follows their request in adopting the most excellent Japanese tradition of assassinating government officials who tell us things we don't like.
I fully support this position, we should only tolerate the democratic government as long as it does what we want, if it steps out of line, coup attempt. If it looks the wrong way, coup attempt. Tells us to do something we don't want to do? Believe it or not, coup attempt.

I'm sure the army would never coup us or remove us from the playing field.

Yes it would be overkill for AT work but you are missing the point. We will need artillery for our army and at guns. We can purchase an artillery piece and a smaller (37-47mm) AT gun but why bother with that when we could get an artillery piece that could work as an AT gun? Will it be perfect? No but it would simplify our supply lines and be a decent at weapon till the late 40s.

As such, it is my belief that the Canon de 75 modèle 1897 is literally the perfect weapon for our army.
 
Yes it would be overkill for AT work but you are missing the point. We will need artillery for our army and at guns. We can purchase an artillery piece and a smaller (37-47mm) AT gun but why bother with that when we could get an artillery piece that could work as an AT gun? Will it be perfect? No but it would simplify our supply lines and be a decent at weapon till the late 40s.

As such, it is my belief that the Canon de 75 modèle 1897 is literally the perfect weapon for our army.
I said it in my post where we could probably afford one and a half to two smaller AT cannons to one modèle 1897 as the main reason for my preference. But it is just that, a preference, and I can see where you're coming from since it would simplify logistics to a degree where we MIGHT be able to justify a domestic 75mm shell production.
 
I said it in my post where we could probably afford one and a half to two smaller AT cannons to one modèle 1897 as the main reason for my preference. But it is just that, a preference, and I can see where you're coming from since it would simplify logistics to a degree where we MIGHT be able to justify a domestic 75mm shell production.
Yes, that's fair. a 75mm is a Good Enough solution to early enemy tanks, either we land shots at long range around/on them until they're disabled, or fire over open sights and smoke it with a direct hit, whilst also fulfilling our field gun and small naval artillery needs.
 
Back
Top