Print

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

[Mandemon]

NAF-BC-51 "Rabid"
"Rabid" Battle Carbine '51 is a new rifle for our troops. Weapon fires .280 round shamelessly copied from British and their recent rifle demonstration. The rifle is a gas operated using long-strike piston with rotating bolt, giving it ability to fire in semi-automatic mode without needing a large external assembly as our existing Tokow rifle. The rifle is relatively short, only about 35 inches long with the stock, with recoil spring located in the stock. Weapon feeds from 30 round curved magazine.
Main feature of the weapon is the "assisted reset" mode. In this mode, when weapon cycles the trigger is reset to the forward position, allowing user to rapidly squeeze the trigger simply by maintaining pressure on the trigger. Additional latch prevent firing until cycling is complete, in order to ensure that the weapon remains compliant with the UN treaty. The barrel is covered in a metal shroud. There are also links to allow weapon to be carried with a strap, as well as rails for mounting optics or other additions.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

NAF-SCR-51 "Repeater"
"Repeater" Self-Cocking Rifle is a replacement for machineguns. It fires our existing .303 rounds, but uses assisted reset for the trigger. Trigger is a button shaped, requiring user to press down on the trigger with their thumb rather than squeeze with their index finger. The assisted reset allows user to maintain steady pressure and maintain rapid "trigger press" action, reaching extremely high firerates. Weapon fires from an open bolt position and is fed from either side-mounted magazine or a belt. Pivot point for the trigger connector is placed close to the trigger, to make trigger up-and-down movement less extreme and maintaining pressure on the trigger easier.

Spoiler: "Demonstration of the concept, not absolute" (click to show/hide)

[10ebbor10]

Those appear to be coming uncomfortably close to the UN restrictions.

[Mandemon]

Those appear to be coming uncomfortably close to the UN restrictions.

Ah, but that's beauty of them. They do not violate it, because the trigger prevents more than one shot fired per activation.

However, there is no limitation how often the trigger is pressed. As long as user needs to press the trigger down, it's legal. Relevant parts underlined

VI.    Automatic Weaponry:
Protocol VI on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Automatic Weaponry prohibits the use of weaponry which fires greater than one projectile per activation of the device.  This includes weapons which in the user is able to continue the firing of said weapon without further input or intervention.  The reason is that such weaponry enables one user to rapidly cause the death of many in an indiscriminate fashion, needlessly accelerating the rate at which casualties are inflicted during the conflict.

As can be seen, these designs require user input of repressing the trigger, rather than merely holding the trigger down which is the critical part. Essentially, just like the walkers, these weapons are explicitly designed to get around the ban. Not to mention something similar exist today to get around US ban on automatic weaponry for civilians,.

[10ebbor10]

As long as user needs to press the trigger down, it's legal.

I dunno. Simply holding the trigger down (as your design appears to be implying) sounds like a single action, not a multitude of actions to me.

[Mandemon]

As long as user needs to press the trigger down, it's legal.

I dunno. Simply holding the trigger down (as your design appears to be implying) sounds like a single action, not a multitude of actions to me.

User doesn't hold the trigger down, they maintain pressure on it so that once the cycling is complete and trigger has reseted, they will be pulling it right away. That is why it's called Assisted Reset. If you look at the diagrams, you see that the bolt nudges the trigger back to reset position, but does not allow second round to be fired until the trigger is pressed. In normal semi-autos, user needs to release the trigger manually and then pull, while this system skips the manual release part and makes it part of the cycle. However, you still needs to pull the trigger to actually fire the next round, which is what makes it legal.

Also, my vote

Design
NAF-LAB-51 "Eagle" Airship (1): Chiefwaffles
NAF-BC-51 "Rabid" (1): Mandemon

Design Sold to America

[10ebbor10]

Ah, I understand now. So, the gun pushes the trigger back up, then you push it back down.

Still I kinda want an airship.

Design
NAF-LAB-51 "Eagle" Airship (2): Chiefwaffles,10ebbor10
NAF-BC-51 "Rabid" (1): Mandemon

Design Sold to America

[Kot]

Design
NAF-LAB-51 "Eagle" Airship (2): Chiefwaffles,10ebbor10
NAF-BC-51 "Rabid" (2): Mandemon, Kot

Design Sold to America

Airship too expensive.

[10ebbor10]

It shouldn't be.

It's a lot lighter and smaller than our destroyer, and that one is affordable.

[Kot]

The question is probably wether we have enough helium, because if we don't then we're stuck with either incredibly expensive airships, to the point of being theoretical (or something) or airships that go up in flames when sun shines too hard on them.

In any case, I'd like mounts for NMGs on it. Also, airplanes are enterietly out of question.

[10ebbor10]

We're using hydrogen.

And contrary to popular belief, hydrogen is not a devastating fire hazard. Hydrogen cells are 100% hydrogen, which means no combustion can occur. In order to set a hydrogen filled airship aflame, you need continued persistent fire of explosive and incendiary shells in the same area, which is impossible without planes.

Since those are banned, we're fine.

[Mandemon]

It shouldn't be.

It's a lot lighter and smaller than our destroyer, and that one is affordable.

It's 200 meters long and 30 meters in diameter, semi-rigid air ship. If our tank is 1 resource off from National Effort, I do not see airship being any cheaper.

We're using hydrogen.

And contrary to popular belief, hydrogen is not a devastating fire hazard. Hydrogen cells are 100% hydrogen, which means no combustion can occur. In order to set a hydrogen filled airship aflame, you need continued persistent fire of explosive and incendiary shells in the same area, which is impossible without planes.

Since those are banned, we're fine.

Doesn't matter what you are using for the lift, you are still using a lot of resources to build and maintain it. I do not see airship being viable for us until either our development track advances enough to make it economic to build or we receive shit ton of resources.

[10ebbor10]

It's 200 meters long and 30 meters in diameter, semi-rigid air ship. If our tank is 1 resource off from National Effort, I do not see airship being any cheaper.

Our destroyer is vastly bigger than the tank, and yet it costs less. Sure, the airship is big, but most of it is gasbags.

[Kot]

We're using hydrogen.

And contrary to popular belief, hydrogen is not a devastating fire hazard. Hydrogen cells are 100% hydrogen, which means no combustion can occur. In order to set a hydrogen filled airship aflame, you need continued persistent fire of explosive and incendiary shells in the same area, which is impossible without planes.

Since those are banned, we're fine.

That's implying banned planes also means AAA cannot exist, that they will be not able to make NMGs and that planes are completly banned. Magnus-effect, cyclogyros, autogyros, helicopters and even probably variable-sweep wings planes are A-okay.

After all, hydrogen cells get less than 100% hydrogen very fast if they're punctured.

[Mandemon]

It's 200 meters long and 30 meters in diameter, semi-rigid air ship. If our tank is 1 resource off from National Effort, I do not see airship being any cheaper.

Our destroyer is vastly bigger than the tank, and yet it costs less. Sure, the airship is big, but most of it is gasbags.

I am still doubtful and there is nothing preventing enemy from just turning their artillery to point up. Treaty banned fixed-wing aircraft, not anti-air

[10ebbor10]

I am still doubtful and there is nothing preventing enemy from just turning their artillery to point up. Treaty banned fixed-wing aircraft, not anti-air

Anti aircraft artillery is not a surefire weapon against airships (nor, for that matter, is it a surefire weapon against planes). They're surprisingly durable.

After all, hydrogen cells get less than 100% hydrogen very fast if they're punctured.

Actually, they don't. They're barely pressurized, which means the flow out of the cell is very slow. The entire airship could be perforated, and it'll still stay in the air for a few hours. At the same time, the slow leak rate ensures that explosive conditions aren't reached outside the cell.

Hindenburg style explosions were pretty rare.

Magnus-effect, cyclogyros, autogyros, helicopters and even probably variable-sweep wings planes are A-okay.

Variable-sweep wing is still a fixed wing aircraft.

The rest is true, but they'll struggle to reach the altitude of an airship.