Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RAM]

Muzzle brake and staff for heavy sniper rifles is good to have, but those are meant to be fired from a bipod. I hate to bring real world (again), but Google anti-material rifle for a rough outline of what I want to get

Also, engineer details like recoil compensation and stuff, IMO, better to be left in the background. We aren't engineers we are giving orders to engineers

This seems coherent and sensible, though I am not currently equipped to adjudicate such matters...

[Morrigi]

14.5 will allow more ammunition to be carried and is adequate for anti-tank use. Heavier vehicles, if they are fielded by the enemy, can be taken out by a 40mm AP cartridge.

A 16mm round is simply unnecessary, given what we know about armor technology in the 1920's. In fact, at short range a 14.5mm round fired from a PRTD has a chance of penetrating the 40mm side armor of a Panzer IV, which a small country next door is not likely to have an equivalent of.

[Sensei]

I wouldn't want to fire a 16mm rifle- although with 1920's tank armor, anti-armor rifles are an option.

Honestly, the 7.62x54r rounds our Nagants use kick pretty hard, without some kind of recoil compensation. Really, go grab a 30'/40's Nagant from a pawn shop some time. They're about $100, but you'll have to get the cosmoline off yourself.

[Morrigi]

I wouldn't want to fire a 16mm rifle- although with 1920's tank armor, anti-armor rifles are an option.

Honestly, the 7.62x54r rounds our Nagants use kick pretty hard, without some kind of recoil compensation. Really, go grab a 30'/40's Nagant from a pawn shop some time. They're about $100, but you'll have to get the cosmoline off yourself.

I've fired one myself, and I can say that the recoil of firing 6 or 7 rounds temporarily cured my back problem. Speaking of which, I suggest that we come up with a padded buttplate to replace the damned steel one, and commence construction of these new-pattern rifles with improved sights, bolts, and buttplates as soon as we have extra production capability. Our soldiers will be grateful.

[Funk]

The steel but plate is a spare weapon,a club.

[Morrigi]

Point.

[Funk]

a 16mm anti-armor rifle is a bit short sighted, in a few years tank armor will be to thick for it to piece often and then it cant fit nicely in you a diffident roll.
now even if 14mm has to be removed from anti tank duty, in MG form it can be used in other rolls i.e. AA or plane use.

[Nadaka]

Its going to take me a while to wade through... but I am reviewing the suggestions since Sunday night starting now.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Point is that I offer not a primitive anti-tank rifle to mass produce for our infantry, but an expensive complex sniper rifle that can be used against light tanks, gun positions and unarmored vehicles by nicely trained snipers. (In other words I wan anti-material rifle)

Why I expect it to be expensive, complex and hard to use? Because that is a pioneer technology for 1922 year, real world AT rifles appeared in mid 1935 and high caliber sniper rifles (Some modern ones have 20mm rounds) are post war idea

Yet, it is plausible for that time period, any nation that could design bolt action rifle could make a heavy one, but I don't expect it to be a great weapon straight away

And yep, 14(16) mm round has many other uses, like heavy MG for our fighters and quad AA systems for our navy. 

From now on I will boldify actual suggestions to make it easier for the GM

[Sensei]

expensive complex

Yeah, we're poor and inexperienced.

[jaass]

Why not design the bullet instead of the rifle also we should refine the frag grenade. We should really just be refining existing design then keep designing weapons that will be less useful in the coming war.

Also, have we redesign the sights on Mosin Nagant?

[Doomblade187]

Why not design the bullet instead of the rifle also we should refine the frag grenade. We should really just be refining existing design then keep designing weapons that will be less useful in the coming war.

Also, have we redesign the sights on Mosin Nagant?

He have yet to replace the sights on the Mosin-Nagants, though there was a suggestion, with one vote.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

expensive complex

Yeah, we're poor and inexperienced.

And yet we design tanks with 20mm armor easily Much more complex thing for 1921

Why not design the bullet instead of the rifle

Mostly because it's never design bullet first, weapon for it next, Always other way around ( of cause bullet adopted for the one gun will be then used for new designs)
You'll get a better bullet\weapon synergy if they are designed together

[a1s]

Mostly because it's never design bullet first, weapon for it next, Always other way around ( of cause bullet adopted for the one gun will be then used for new designs)
You'll get a better bullet\weapon synergy if they are designed together

Actually that's exactly how it is. While weapon development is technically independent of specific rounds (indeed changing a weapon's caliber is a popular hobbyist activity), it's always taken into account in practice. On the other hand rounds are almost always developed independently of weapons, unless they are designed by the same company (like H&K's 4.73×33mm round and it's companion rifle the G11)

[RAM]

So long as we end up with a sniper rifle that can still be effective after going through a few brick walls or small-arms armour. The mere existance of such a thing could give our foreign counter-parts all sorts of headaches when trying to design their own armour. Although we probably have more pressing concerns right now.
 On the topic of small-arms armour, it should be pretty easy to design a shield, probably with a sled with which to be dragged. It could be invaluable when assaulting positions that are defending each other.