Print

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

[milo christiansen]

True, pressure is still high (I worded that poorly), but the actual forces on various parts of the rifle are lower (recoil for example is much lower). Reduced recoil == less gun weight required to eat the recoil (as you point out). Smaller round == smaller hole for the magazine well (stronger receiver for less weight), smaller operating parts, etc. Smaller parts means less weight OR the ability to build the parts more robustly for the same weight. We can have a heavily built action for the same weight as a lighter built action designed to cycle larger rounds.

5.45 is small, but it is an established military round designed for exactly the situation we have, namely short to medium range infantry combat.

The aluminum thing is purely optional, steel will do as well (but for a greater weight). Wood could be used for the stock (using the same screw-on system proposed for the metal stock), the pistol grip (once again, just screw it on), and possibly even the barrel shroud (would need to be a two piece clamshell assembly, but that is what the metal one is anyway). Look at the foregrip on an AK for something similar (but not exactly the same).

Where is the pistol grip? Uhm, what? Right behind the trigger, exactly where you would expect it to be.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

Good to know! I was thinking of the possibility of a pistol grip being along the barrel, which would've conflicted with the shroud's use, which is why I was confused.

I feel like making more parts out of wood would lower the cost and weight as compared to steel parts, though rolls and whatnot.

[Funk]

Ok to break thru treanchs we need massive artillery barrages, using thousands of heavy expensive guns, or we can try useing rocket artillery.

Spoiler: The mk 1 "Special" flying pipe (click to show/hide)

Based on the principle of 10mm Special, it's a short length of iron pipe, filled with gunpowder and fitted with a 80/75mm warhead at one end, there other a wooded pole to help aim it.
Fired from simple wooden stand, it's ideally used en mass to cover it's lack of accuracy.

A smaller 37mm model should be issued in huge numbers, one per man or more

With rocket artillery we can have a huge concentrated bombardments just before an attack, there no gun to reload or move around just the rockets.
Each rocket should around 8-12kg, so man portable.
We have much simpler weapon to make so we can lot's of them for massive artillery barrage against enemy trenches.

[Aseaheru]

 somemildmanneredidiot, thats called a foregrip.

[Wolfhunter107]

Ok to break thru treanchs we need massive artillery barrages, using thousands of heavy expensive guns, or we can try useing rocket artillery.

Spoiler: The mk 1 "Special" flying pipe (click to show/hide)

Based on the principle of 10mm Special, it's a short length of iron pipe, filled with gunpowder and fitted with a 80/75mm warhead at one end, there other a wooded pole to help aim it.
Fired from simple wooden stand, it's ideally used en mass to cover it's lack of accuracy.

A smaller 37mm model should be issued in huge numbers, one per man or more

With rocket artillery we can have a huge concentrated bombardments just before an attack, there no gun to reload or move around just the rockets.
Each rocket should around 8-12kg, so man portable.
We have much simpler weapon to make so we can lot's of them for massive artillery barrage against enemy trenches.

I don't really think this is going to be all that useful. It's biggest advantage, rapid fire, isn't that much of a game-changer with how slow the pace of warfare is right now, and might even be a disadvantage, since  it may be more likely to exhaust ammunition supplies early on.


As for the rifle, I'm in favor of something similar to the Meunier A6 and it's rimless 7mm ammunition, which I think is a lot more feasible to design and produce, especially the ammunition.

[Amperzand]

I mean, if we could figure out some equivalent of the Panzerfaust or LAW, that'd be interesting. Small, light, cheap disposable rocket launchers with both anti-armor and anti-infantry capability. Crude explosively formed penetrator on top of an HE warhead and a nitrocellulose rocket in a lightweight steel tube, issue them to one man per squad as a sort of single-shot discretionary artillery gun, leaves us ready to deal with any armored problems, and you can always mount them on vehicles or something for massed fire.

[Funk]

Baby steps little baby steps here.

Yes we'll run out of rockets but that means we fired that much ammo and hopefully do some damage.
A Panzerfaust would be nice but what is there to fire one at? we don't face any tanks.

What a about a 37mm rocket launcher?
i say 37mm as we have explosive 37mm shells in our revolving cannon.

[Amperzand]

My point was the disposable small scale shoulder launcher, not necessarily the antitank potential.

[H4zardZ1]

Sorry, but i don't know what are you talking about. Please tell me so i can tell my ideas.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

somemildmanneredidiot, thats called a foregrip.

That makes sense! There's a reason for the last word of this handle.

I can see a metal pistol grip causing discomfort after prolonged use. A rubber coating could help, though wood like you said works as well and would be likely less resource intensive.

@Rocket Prototype: So I see three primary issues with this idea.

First and foremost, rockets are likely not considered ammunition so we would need to produce each one personally. This means that every pp spent here will not have any further use after the first volley, considering that rockets aren't exactly reusable.

Second, the system you describe has a very short end range. The Congreve Rocket is what you're describing correct? The 32 pound version has a range of 2.75km. The horse portable 12 pound version has a range of 1.8km. The more accurate Hale rocket system increases accuracy but specifically lowers its range. Rockets as artillery were out ranged by smoothbore muzzle loading guns in the 1810s. At this point with recoil reduced breech loading 10km~ guns, rockets don't have the operating range to be effective artillery pieces.

Third, the system is literally 100 years old. The Hale system is more modern at 55 years old. They had fallen out of use by the time WW1 had come around because gun based artillery was easier to advance to the point that rockets did not have a niche they could really fill. The reason why we use rockets in modern day is because we have guidance systems and propellant systems that allow rockets to have a huge effective range against a wide variety of targets.

We also have mortars which have an effective range of up to 4km with very significant accuracy up to 1km. That basically covers the range of rockets as they are currently suggested and are already man portable. As the Flying Pipe is designed to require set up, there doesn't seem to be a particular advantage as compared to the mortars.

Something like a shoulder launcher is a bit different for deployable purposes, but that's not exactly the current item on the table. Aiming for that and using the Flying Pipe as a stepping stone towards that would rank as a bit more useful most likely.

[3_14159]

Edited Pi's assignments to account for the untrained specialists being used instead of trained. Any opposed?
[snip]
The primary difference between the vote and this is that this includes one basic engineer being taken from Swordfish C to handle the Tractor Engine adaption.

Full approval from me!

I'll just leave the following design here for consideration:

*snip*

Definitely very interesting. I'm imagining something like this, except with more metal, an actual shoulder stock and no foregrip, plus chambered for another round.
There are a few issues I could see with it:
- The barrel is very long, at 610mm. As a comparison, the M1 Carbine had a barrel length of 460mm, the M1 Garand of 610mm. I feel that this length will make the weapon more cumbersome than it has to be.
- The choice of round seems fine to me (though possibly too small for a semi-automatic rifle). However, as Aseaheru had previously stated that we have to convince the military establishment, I'd think about a slightly bigger round. This would also balance shortening the barrel.
- The large number of new features (semi-auto, new/small cartridge, pistol grip, all-metal construction, barrel shroud, safety, box magazines, aluminum) the rifle introduces will make it more difficult to develop, more expensive, and less reliable.

That's why I'd actually propose a change in plans for the rifle, and using three instead of two versions: The M1 is the basic model, and the one we'll develop first. It will serve as a cheap rifle and testbed for the semi-auto rifles. The M2 model is the R10MK1 you proposed above, and the M3 model is the MK2 you had proposed. This way, we'll get the best of both worlds - a cheap and early semi-automatic rifle, an upgrade to a proven design and - eventually - a proto-assault rifle.
In this vein:

A semi-automatic rifle in the new 5.45x39 cartridge.

The R10 MK1 has a 450mm barrel.

The action is a simple rotating bolt gas operated system, with the gas supplied by a barrel port at the front of the barrel shroud. The gas block is integrated with the bayonet lug, and so very solidly mounted. The action contains a hold-open device so that when the last cartridge is fired the bolt locks open. Pulling the bolt back a small amount releases it, allowing it to slam into battery.

The rifle feeds from single stack detachable box magazines, a 20 round version of which is standard equipment. The magazine well is in front of the trigger guard.

A tangent leaf sight is standard. This sight may be adjusted between 50 and 500 meters in 50 meter increments. Front sight is a hooded post type.

The rifle uses simple wood stocking wherever possible to reduce cost.

Thoughts on that? Also, I am thinking about whether we shouldn't go for a 6.5mm round, if only to make adoption far easier - we (in-game) can point to the existing 6.5mm rifles.

Spoiler: The mk 1 "Special" flying pipe (click to show/hide)

Based on the principle of 10mm Special, it's a short length of iron pipe, filled with gunpowder and fitted with a 80/75mm warhead at one end, there other a wooded pole to help aim it.
Fired from simple wooden stand, it's ideally used en mass to cover it's lack of accuracy.

A smaller 37mm model should be issued in huge numbers, one per man or more

I am unsure on what exactly you're going for. On the one hand, your description sounds a lot like a smaller version of the Faustpatrone, except for not using shaped charges. On the other hand, the description of its use sounds rather like a rocket-powered mortar, mostly like the Imperial Japanese's Type 4 rocket launcher, though smaller. In both cases, I don't believe they're currently offering something we need.
In the first case, a direct-fire rocket weapon has advantages in allowing us to project explosive firepower far farther than by hand. Yet, we already have a weapon that allows us to do so - our grenade critted that roll, and we are able to use it as a rifle grenade. In doing so, every soldier can carry one, similarly to what you seem to want with the smaller, 37mm, model. In addition, the closest equivalent I could find - the Faustpatrone linked above - has an effective range of only 30 metres.
In the second case, I have to second somemildmanneredidiot; we have our mortars to project close-range artillery support. The Flying Pipe would have an advantage assuming it's supposed to be used as a multiple rocket launcher (launching ten or twenty rockets at once), but I do not believe it's worth it at the moment.

[milo christiansen]

Definitely very interesting. I'm imagining something like this, except with more metal, an actual shoulder stock and no foregrip, plus chambered for another round.

That is fairly close to my mental image, yes.

There are a few issues I could see with it:
- The barrel is very long, at 610mm. As a comparison, the M1 Carbine had a barrel length of 460mm, the M1 Garand of 610mm. I feel that this length will make the weapon more cumbersome than it has to be.
- The choice of round seems fine to me (though possibly too small for a semi-automatic rifle). However, as Aseaheru had previously stated that we have to convince the military establishment, I'd think about a slightly bigger round. This would also balance shortening the barrel.
- The large number of new features (semi-auto, new/small cartridge, pistol grip, all-metal construction, barrel shroud, safety, box magazines, aluminum) the rifle introduces will make it more difficult to develop, more expensive, and less reliable.

* Shorter barrel is just fine (it's kinda hard for me to visualize metric measurements).
* We don't have to convince the military of anything. We control production, if they don't like it they can suck a lemon
* Staged development would be OK, so long as the result is useable and a improvment over what we have.

I like your proposed design (it's a good compromise), so let's go with that for now.

As for 6.5mm, you mean 6.5x39? If so that would be close enough (but see my point about not needing to worry about the military too much). If needed we can point to the fact that the 5.45 produces larger wounds due the the way it tumbles when it hits (we can do some "pig tests" or something to get the data). The main reason to go with 5.45x39 now is so that we never need a new rifle caliber ever again (although hopefully the war won't drag on that long).

[somemildmanneredidiot]

The rifle progression sounds good though I'm a bit lost on the benefits of an all metal or mostly metal weapon. The biggest concern I have is logistical, but hopefully that will be resolved with more factory production and developing a native flux source.

We may control weapons manufacturing, but we don't actually control bullet or shell production. If they don't like the weapons we make, they might not make rounds for them.

Speaking about the length of the war, I've mentioned before that we should try to figure out a general strategy for the war. Having a focus to have ideas around could help produce results.

The main idea I have in regards to that is basically holding them on a stalemate on the land front while squeezing them dry on the naval front. Any air front should be focused on defense and supporting the other two fronts, at least until we develop the infrastructure to obtain complete air superiority. Once we have control of the seas, they won't be able to import any additional supplies and we can then begin to split their forces through amphibious assaults while advancing the main line.

@Aseaheru: Are our artillery lines spread thin at the moment? How do our artillery numbers compare to theirs as a rough guess from our military commanders?

[milo christiansen]

All metal construction is relatively cheap, and very easy to do (you can stamp the parts out in huge numbers).

As for the military possibly refusing to produce ammo or use the rifles: So long as we stop producing the old rifles they will have to switch sooner or later (although obviously getting some good arguments for the smaller caliber would be better)

Possible reason to use the smaller caliber (that we can show the army):
* Reduced logistical pressure (smaller round weighs less and takes less space in the transports).
* Soldiers can carry more ammo for the same weight.
* Better wounding properties (bullet tumbles when it hits, ripping the target a new one, literally).
* Cheaper to produce in quantity.

[Aseaheru]

At the moment we are severely outnumbered in long range arty.

Milo, something to note is that current industry may not have the ability to stamp metal parts in quantity with the strength required.