Machine guns

Weird Harold wrote:

Lazalarlives wrote:We might see SMG fairly soon; the old M3 grease gun had more in common with water pumps (and the associated tolerances) than it did with the Maxim when you look at it close. The only issue that Merlin/Owl might have with it is that SMG are typically urban fighting weapons and very well suited to insurgencies and terror ops. They're not very good as field weapons. Like naval mines, an SMG is of more benefit to the COGA than to the EOC. My lingering impressions are strongly influenced by Russian Kommissars and other types of 'loyalty' officers and troops.

Wiki agree with my memory of Russian WWII history:

The PPSh was a magazine-fed selective fire submachine gun using an open-bolt, blowback action. Made largely of stamped steel, it could be loaded with either a box or drum magazine, and fired the 7.62×25mm Tokarev pistol round.

The PPSh saw extensive combat use during World War II and the Korean War. It was one of the major infantry weapons of the Soviet armed forces during World War II. Around 6 million PPSh-41s were manufactured. In the form of the Chinese Type 50 (a licensed copy), it was still being used by Vietnamese Viet Cong as late as 1970. According to the 2002 edition of The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II the PPSh was still in use with irregular military forces.[6]

Granted, the Army of God and Harchongese peasants are more likely to use "Human Wave" attacks, but SMGs work well as field guns. Assault Rifles are a bit better in the field because they have a slightly longer range than pistol ammo, but one of the reasons for going to a lighter, shorter range for assault rifles is that the long range of a Battle Rifle (like the Garand or Mosi Nagant) isn't needed for the ranges soldiers normally engage the enemy -- seldom over 150-200 Yds, IIRC.

Like you, I don't expect heavy machine guns very soon; I'd almost expect a .25 or .30 caliber on the Browning (M2) pattern, though, chambered for whatever smokeless powder caliber they choose and using re-fillable 100 round canvas/steel thistle silk belts.

I'd expect a bit larger bullet -- .32 to .45 -- using box or drum magazines. Something similar to the BAR, for situations requiring more range or terminal ballistics than AK or SMG standard issue.

In part, it will depend on how much emphasis the ICA puts on marksmanship. The Russians used so many SMGs because they didn't emphasize marksmanship -- especially long range marksmanship -- but did emphasize weight of fire.

My favorite description of the SMG comes from a history of the Red Army in WWII: "The PPSh suited the Russians well. Like all submachineguns, it was a long-range bayonet, the weapon of someone who wanted to get in and finish the business."

runsforcelery wrote:My favorite description of the SMG comes from a history of the Red Army in WWII: "The PPSh suited the Russians well. Like all submachineguns, it was a long-range bayonet, the weapon of someone who wanted to get in and finish the business."

An apt description.

Hello RFC!

Your record continues unblemished; an accurate comment, but no hint of what you've decided for the story or when.


Feel free to continue taunting our best guesses.

We'll strive to guess on.

L

runsforcelery wrote:*quote="Weird Harold"*[quote="Lazalarlives"]We might see SMG fairly soon; the old M3 grease gun had more in common with water pumps (and the associated tolerances) than it did with the Maxim when you look at it close. The only issue that Merlin/Owl might have with it is that SMG are typically urban fighting weapons and very well suited to insurgencies and terror ops. They're not very good as field weapons. Like naval mines, an SMG is of more benefit to the COGA than to the EOC. My lingering impressions are strongly influenced by Russian Kommissars and other types of 'loyalty' officers and troops.*quote*

Wiki agree with my memory of Russian WWII history:

The PPSh was a magazine-fed selective fire submachine gun using an open-bolt, blowback action. Made largely of stamped steel, it could be loaded with either a box or drum magazine, and fired the 7.62×25mm Tokarev pistol round.

The PPSh saw extensive combat use during World War II and the Korean War. It was one of the major infantry weapons of the Soviet armed forces during World War II. Around 6 million PPSh-41s were manufactured. In the form of the Chinese Type 50 (a licensed copy), it was still being used by Vietnamese Viet Cong as late as 1970. According to the 2002 edition of The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II the PPSh was still in use with irregular military forces.[6]

Granted, the Army of God and Harchongese peasants are more likely to use "Human Wave" attacks, but SMGs work well as field guns. Assault Rifles are a bit better in the field because they have a slightly longer range than pistol ammo, but one of the reasons for going to a lighter, shorter range for assault rifles is that the long range of a Battle Rifle (like the Garand or Mosi Nagant) isn't needed for the ranges soldiers normally engage the enemy -- seldom over 150-200 Yds, IIRC.

Like you, I don't expect heavy machine guns very soon; I'd almost expect a .25 or .30 caliber on the Browning (M2) pattern, though, chambered for whatever smokeless powder caliber they choose and using re-fillable 100 round canvas/steel thistle silk belts.

I'd expect a bit larger bullet -- .32 to .45 -- using box or drum magazines. Something similar to the BAR, for situations requiring more range or terminal ballistics than AK or SMG standard issue.

In part, it will depend on how much emphasis the ICA puts on marksmanship. The Russians used so many SMGs because they didn't emphasize marksmanship -- especially long range marksmanship -- but did emphasize weight of fire.

My favorite description of the SMG comes from a history of the Red Army in WWII: "The PPSh suited the Russians well. Like all submachineguns, it was a long-range bayonet, the weapon of someone who wanted to get in and finish the business."[/quote]

Weird Harold wrote:

Thucydides wrote:This might be one model for the ICA to adopt as they transition to the "Great War" era of equipment, bolt action Lee Enfield type rifles covering a machine gun (or two, Canadians were notorious scroungers), a rifle grenadier and a hand grenade specialist (or a few of each).

Hopefully, Charis will bypass the "Great War" and go directly to the later stages of WWII.

I do NOT expect Charis to go to the Soviet pattern of every other soldier having a submachine gun, I expect them to go directly to (nearly) every soldier having an assault rifle similar to the AK family of rifles. Something magazine fed and of substantial caliber.

I do not foresee a crew-served, belt-fed heavy machine gun in general deployment because I don't foresee the ICA getting bogged down in fixed positions where they're most useful.

I think RFC himself pointed out that Merlin/OWL could coach Safehold on anything up to 25th century Infantry tactics, but from a practical matter, I am going to say the Great War is next, for several reasons:

1. There is no radio, telephone, telegraph or other electrical communications possible, making moving large formations in operational manoeuvre problematic

2. There are no airplanes either. Air recce, bombing, fighter-bomber support or any of the other forms of air support possible in WWII are not possible. (Air support in the form of contact patrol fighters really did not become an issue until very late in the Great War)

3. Tanks, self propelled artillery and other forms of mechanized warfare are also missing. (APC's in the form of "Kangaroos"; old tanks with the turrets removed were also pioneered at this time)

4. Mechanized warfare as practiced in WWII requires the sorts of heavy duty, globe spanning logistics pioneered in the Great War.

From a tactical perspective, I would also favour the sorts of long ranged weapons common during the Great War (including the artillery train) for the rather simple reason that the ICA and her allies will be facing off against vastly larger CoGA forces, and being able to stand them off at over a kilometre is much better than pouring in the firepower at 300 metres range. Highly trained riflemen can put out a considerable amount of firepower with the right rifles (yes, the Battle of Loos, 1915). Backed with suitable rifle calibre or heavy machine-guns, mortars and artillery, the ICA should inflict such punishment on advancing units they will become combat ineffective before they can even close to their rifle range.

Mobile warfare is also possible, since the ICA can engage at long ranges and break away before the CoGA forces can close, offering many tactical opportunities for the clever commander, from galling them with long range fire while on the move to luring the CoGA force into a fire sack (KZ).

While it is theoretically possible that steam powered tanks and even airplanes could be made (yes, there have been steam powered airplanes) for a sort of "Plan 1919", this would also need a very big jump in the technological and logistical abilities of the Empire, so I won't hold my breath.

Thucydides wrote:***SNIP***
In our own world the first really successful LMG did not enter service until 1974; the FM Minimi (US M-249), 71 years after the initial conception of an automatic rifle per squad. This should give everyone a bit of a pause, it will take a lot of "aha" moments for Safehold to reach that point.

Personally, I would consider the first successful LMG to be the Browning Automatic Rifle. I will grant that in the many years since its introduction, there have been better guns invented to fill the LMG role. But if you compare the BAR to its contemporary weapons, it was way ahead of its time.

Henry Brown wrote:

Thucydides wrote:***SNIP***
In our own world the first really successful LMG did not enter service until 1974; the FM Minimi (US M-249), 71 years after the initial conception of an automatic rifle per squad. This should give everyone a bit of a pause, it will take a lot of "aha" moments for Safehold to reach that point.

Personally, I would consider the first successful LMG to be the Browning Automatic Rifle. I will grant that in the many years since its introduction, there have been better guns invented to fill the LMG role. But if you compare the BAR to its contemporary weapons, it was way ahead of its time.

Henry, while the BAR was a single-user weapon, it is more properly a medium machine gun, like the M60 or M240B. A M249 SAW is a single-user weapon - no extra ammunition carriers or secondary gunners/spotters. The difference is small, but can be significant. A medium machine gun is a rapidly displaced fixed position weapon while a light machine gun is a mobile weapon system capable of sustained fire. Shooting an M60 or BAR (I've done both) from the hip is a rush, but don't expect to hit. A M249, on the other hand, is light and nimble enough to fire from your shoulder (something you CAN do but I wouldn't advise with the older weapons).

I know I'm being persnickety, and I don't mean to offend. The doctrine behind the 'Squad Automatic Weapon' and the 'Squad Machine Gun' are very different for light infantry types, especially in suppressive fire and when using fire and maneuver for engagements. The M60/240B sweeps the whole field, while the M249/SAW advances. Add in plunging fire (which the SAW is awful at) and the medium gun's place is secure.

And I have had to man-pack a M2 in the field. It sucked; heavy machine guns are not the weapon of choice for tight terrain (Jungle Operations Training Center, Ft. Sherman, Panama).

Just my two bits,
Dave

Thucydides wrote:I think RFC himself pointed out that Merlin/OWL could coach Safehold on anything up to 25th century Infantry tactics, but from a practical matter, I am going to say the Great War is next, for several reasons:

...

From a tactical perspective, I would also favour the sorts of long ranged weapons common during the Great War (including the artillery train) for the rather simple reason that the ICA and her allies will be facing off against vastly larger CoGA forces, and being able to stand them off at over a kilometre is much better than pouring in the firepower at 300 metres range. Highly trained riflemen can put out a considerable amount of firepower with the right rifles (yes, the Battle of Loos, 1915). Backed with suitable rifle calibre or heavy machine-guns, mortars and artillery, the ICA should inflict such punishment on advancing units they will become combat ineffective before they can even close to their rifle range.

This thread is specifically oriented towards "machine guns" so most of your very valid points are irrelevant. I haven't given a lot of thought to the evolution of artillery, but I suspect that the near term is not going to run to railroad guns or "Paris gun" type superguns. (A couple of WWI style guns were used in WWII, (like Anzio Annie, but lighter, more accurate artillery was the rule.)

As you noted, Merlin and OWL have access to several centuries worth of military tech and tactics. That's why I expect (hope) that what was pioneered or perfected in the Great War can be used without going through the waste and collateral damage that prevailed in the Great War.

I don't expect to see carpet bombing or massed artillery because of the collateral damage issue. The best way for the ICA to minimize collateral damage is to use massed small-arms fire at visual ranges, and not rely on massed artillery at Beyond Visual Range.

Imagine Napoleon's army with AKs instead of smooth-bore muskets. That's the equipment mix I see in the near future, without the suicidal massed formations that smooth-bore muskets demand.

While a BAR is a pretty impressive weapon in its own right, it falls into a class of weapons like the Lewis gun or the Bren Gun (or even an M-14 on automatic). Because they fire full power rifle rounds rather than intermediate rounds (7.62X36 like a Russian RPK) or assault rifle rounds like 5.56X45 they are much harder to control and much larger and bulkier as noted.

Confusingly, these are also termed Light Machine Guns, although they are only light relative to medium machine guns (like the Browning M-1919) or heavy machine guns like the M-2. I might characterize them as squad support weapons, since they are magazine fed, rather than belt fed. Squad Automatic Weapon is probably a better term for the Minimi and similar machine-guns. (as a strange aside, there was a conversion kit for the Springfield 03 called the Pedersen device, which allowed the solder to convert his rifle to a semi automatic weapon firing an intermediate cartridge, which may count as an attempt to create an automatic rifle for the US Army: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_device)

As for why I am putting the machine gun arguments in context with the rest of the weapons and tactics; weapons are rarely used in isolation, but multiple factors weigh in on their adoption and use. Even pikes or swords need to be examined in context, so it is important to understand where machine-guns could possibly fit in the Safehold universe.

As a point, imagine that RFC decides that multi barrel machine-guns are what the fans really want, and has the characters introduce Gatling or Nordenfeldt machine-guns into the series. Because of their much greater size and weight, they would be introduced and used as a form of field artillery, and military organizations, logistics and tactics would be much different as a result (look at the British Army during the Boer War, where Nordenfeldt multi barrel machine-guns were used, and compare that to the opening stages of the Great War, where machine-guns the way we understand them were standard issue).

Thucydides wrote:As for why I am putting the machine gun arguments in context with the rest of the weapons and tactics; weapons are rarely used in isolation, but multiple factors weigh in on their adoption and use. Even pikes or swords need to be examined in context, so it is important to understand where machine-guns could possibly fit in the Safehold universe.

As a point, imagine that RFC decides that multi barrel machine-guns are what the fans really want, and has the characters introduce Gatling or Nordenfeldt machine-guns into the series. Because of their much greater size and weight, they would be introduced and used as a form of field artillery, and military organizations, logistics and tactics would be much different as a result

If Safehold runs to a duplication of a RW conflict -- like the American Civil War, the Boer War, the Crimean War, etc -- or even an alternate history version of some RW conflict, you might have a point about major elements of RW conflicts that Charis can't support at this time.

If RFC decides on Gatlings, then we shall have gatlings -- and you're correct that they would be deployed as crew served light artillery. But the mobile tactics being used/developed by the ICA don't trend in that direction.

IMHO, the trend of Charis' tactics leads to an Assault Rifles and away from crew-served belt-fed designs (except for Naval needs.)

Given that trend, the Kalashnikov family is probably the most capable design that is within Charis' manufacturing capabilities. The only innovation necessary -- smokeless powder -- is already under development.

Charis could make pretty much any design up through WWI or even WWII, but not as easily as they could build AK clones.

Charis will build (or not build) whatever suits their needs without regard to missing elements like close air support or mechanized transport. Assault Rifles would probably introduce the least disruption in organization and tactical doctrine because all it really requires is a one-for-one replacement of existing personal arms.

Hi Thucydides,

Trying to predict RFC is not a winning proposition, and I don't think machine guns will play a major role in this war, if they manage to be invented, tested, manufactured ridiculously quickly, they might reach the war-fronts before the war's end.

The main problem with the BAR and its various copies was its 20 round magazine, too few to really be considered a machine gun by most experts NTM those who used it; ie it was an 'automatic rifle'.

the Bren gun while it had a 30 round magazine could only handle 28 before jamming, not much of an improvement however the Brits used it in lieu of having something better.

The Lewis LMG fits the bill far better, was designed and used by one man walking thanks to the shoulder strap etc, weighed only 28 pounds with the 47 round pan magazine, while the 97 round was for firing prone over longer periods of time.

While the Bergman MP-18 shows what could be done in the WW1 tech era, the MP-38, STEN and US M-3 are also quite possible with the ammunition now or soon to be available, StG 44 anyone?

While assault rifles now is a bit of a stretch for me, getting the cavalry horses used to long bursts from MP's or assault rifles at the gallop seems quite a sticking point, if not bloody dangerous.

Although with enough training it might bring back the effective cavalry charge, needing far less depth and especially useful in flanking and pursuit.

While the Go4 might accept a Gatling or Gardner etc, I don't think the inner circle will settle for anything less in terms of mass production than the far more portable Maxim etc, until a JMB character shows up...

L

Thucydides wrote:While a BAR is a pretty impressive weapon in its own right, it falls into a class of weapons like the Lewis gun or the Bren Gun (or even an M-14 on automatic). Because they fire full power rifle rounds rather than intermediate rounds (7.62X36 like a Russian RPK) or assault rifle rounds like 5.56X45 they are much harder to control and much larger and bulkier as noted.

Confusingly, these are also termed Light Machine Guns, although they are only light relative to medium machine guns (like the Browning M-1919) or heavy machine guns like the M-2. I might characterize them as squad support weapons, since they are magazine fed, rather than belt fed. Squad Automatic Weapon is probably a better term for the Minimi and similar machine-guns. (as a strange aside, there was a conversion kit for the Springfield 03 called the Pedersen device, which allowed the solder to convert his rifle to a semi automatic weapon firing an intermediate cartridge, which may count as an attempt to create an automatic rifle for the US Army: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_device)

As for why I am putting the machine gun arguments in context with the rest of the weapons and tactics; weapons are rarely used in isolation, but multiple factors weigh in on their adoption and use. Even pikes or swords need to be examined in context, so it is important to understand where machine-guns could possibly fit in the Safehold universe.

As a point, imagine that RFC decides that multi barrel machine-guns are what the fans really want, and has the characters introduce Gatling or Nordenfeldt machine-guns into the series. Because of their much greater size and weight, they would be introduced and used as a form of field artillery, and military organizations, logistics and tactics would be much different as a result (look at the British Army during the Boer War, where Nordenfeldt multi barrel machine-guns were used, and compare that to the opening stages of the Great War, where machine-guns the way we understand them were standard issue).