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.
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.