[Spoiler] Machineguns

DMcCunney wrote:Things like Gatling guns or other machine guns are mainly defensive weapons, best used from dug in positions in fixed fortifications.

I've said several times that Charis would be best served by developing "Assault Rifles" (intermediate caliber, select fire) and/or Submachine guns (pistol caliber full auto only or select fire.)

Either would provide the "volume of fire" of a machine gun and be "man portable" (usable by a single soldier) and, as general issue, provide "machine gun support" immediately wherever needed.

Gatlings, Maxims, Vickers, Hodgkiss, etc, are, at minimum, "crew served" weapons requiring three to five people to operate effectively. Some, like the Gatling and derivatives are "Light artillery" requiring a method for towing them as well as the livestock to tow them and additional animal handlers.

Assault rifles and submachine guns are easy to build, and at most require a second person to carry additional ammo. Simple "blow back" semi-automatic pistols are generally easily easy to convert to automatic fire -- if initial design flaws don't actually reveal the capability for multiple rounds for each trigger pull.

If Charis hasn't at least developed a M1911 ACP clone I'd be surprised; if they have, their about a half-step away from submachine guns.

Develop Gatlings and pneumatic powered rotating machineguns first. Keep automatic rifles and semi-auto pistols in reserve. Better to promote designs that advantage defense initially. Keep semi-auto and automatic weapons in reserve. If others develop them, so be it. Automatic rifles are attack oriented weapons and will lead to more aggressive diplomacy. Better to highlight defense and encourage nations to ompete in economic contests.

Dilandu wrote:Even in World War 1, radio was pretty common on frontlines, and wires were literally the nerve pathways of entire armies. Most of communication outside the small units were made through wires.

The problem with wires is that they can be cut. Laying wire for field telephones that wouldn't be cut by things like artillery bombardment was non-trivial.

Radio did exist in WWI, but the sets available were big and bulky, and not all that portable. There were some attempts at installing radio in early tanks like the British Mark V where there was sufficient room, but usage was problematic. The commander of a tank company or the like might have radio and get orders and intel updates from HQ, but the other tanks in his unit don't, so how does he pass the word to them?

Once radios got small enough to be man portable and used at platoon level in WWII, things got better.
______
Dennis

PeterZ wrote:Develop Gatlings and pneumatic powered rotating machineguns first. Keep automatic rifles and semi-auto pistols in reserve. Better to promote designs that advantage defense initially. Keep semi-auto and automatic weapons in reserve. If others develop them, so be it. Automatic rifles are attack oriented weapons and will lead to more aggressive diplomacy. Better to highlight defense and encourage nations to ompete in economic contests.

Simple Blow Back/recoil actions are pretty much intuitive; the only problematic design issue is the balance between power and weight. Maxim/Vickers actions work with black powder or smokeless powder and virtually any caliber. Gatlings and Chain Guns are a tad bit more complicated.

The question is, 'Which is a more effective defense? One powered Gatling with 6,000 rounds/minute or 1,000 automatic rifles/submachine guns with 600 rounds/minute?'

The fact that automatic rifles and submachine guns fit Charis' offensive style, too, is just an additional benefit.

It was only in the past year that I found out about my grandfather's use of a machine gun for an aggressive action in WW1 in the Middle East.
He was a sergeant and machine gunner in our 11th Light Horse (mounted infantry rather than cavalry). Much was made of how they succeeded in capturing Beersheba by a cavalry like charge into the teeth of dug in defenders who actually outnumbered them.
Turns out that he, his assistant gunner and a couple of local guides were sent out a day before the charge to a wadi about a mile or so off to the side. They had a Vickers, lots of .303 ammunition, water, supplies and canvas to dig in and be unseen.
Just before the charge was called he commenced dropping in continuous enfilading fire along the defender's trenches. Because of the distance it cleared the front sandbags and landed in the trenches, causing the defenders to take cover.
Military historians had for years debated how an apparently suicidal action succeeded, but it now appears to have been solved.
He would never talk about it except to say that he was involved, but not in the charge directly himself. I suspect that he was troubled by the number of people he must have killed. So yes, a traditional heavy machine gun can be used for assault.

Daryl wrote:It was only in the past year that I found out about my grandfather's use of a machine gun for an aggressive action in WW1 in the Middle East.
He was a sergeant and machine gunner in our 11th Light Horse (mounted infantry rather than cavalry). Much was made of how they succeeded in capturing Beersheba by a cavalry like charge into the teeth of dug in defenders who actually outnumbered them.
Turns out that he, his assistant gunner and a couple of local guides were sent out a day before the charge to a wadi about a mile or so off to the side. They had a Vickers, lots of .303 ammunition, water, supplies and canvas to dig in and be unseen.
Just before the charge was called he commenced dropping in continuous enfilading fire along the defender's trenches. Because of the distance it cleared the front sandbags and landed in the trenches, causing the defenders to take cover.
Military historians had for years debated how an apparently suicidal action succeeded, but it now appears to have been solved.
He would never talk about it except to say that he was involved, but not in the charge directly himself. I suspect that he was troubled by the number of people he must have killed. So yes, a traditional heavy machine gun can be used for assault.

Hah - very interesting indeed - thanks for that!

Weird Harold wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Develop Gatlings and pneumatic powered rotating machineguns first. Keep automatic rifles and semi-auto pistols in reserve. Better to promote designs that advantage defense initially. Keep semi-auto and automatic weapons in reserve. If others develop them, so be it. Automatic rifles are attack oriented weapons and will lead to more aggressive diplomacy. Better to highlight defense and encourage nations to ompete in economic contests.

Simple Blow Back/recoil actions are pretty much intuitive; the only problematic design issue is the balance between power and weight. Maxim/Vickers actions work with black powder or smokeless powder and virtually any caliber. Gatlings and Chain Guns are a tad bit more complicated.

The question is, 'Which is a more effective defense? One powered Gatling with 6,000 rounds/minute or 1,000 automatic rifles/submachine guns with 600 rounds/minute?'

The fact that automatic rifles and submachine guns fit Charis' offensive style, too, is just an additional benefit.

All true. Yet who does Charis want to attack? No one. Who WANTS to attack Charis? No one. Complicated machineguns help the defenders without offering much to attackers.

When things progress to a stage where Charis needs to attack, break out the automatic rifles and steam tank designs for production. We know there are better ship designs in reserve. Why not have other weapons in reserve as well?

There is this automatic weapon named after its illustrious INventor...Kalashnikov. Working copies have been made by Afghan blacksmiths, though I suspect they had some machine tools. It is useful on the attack, and relatively speaking not hard to make.

phillies wrote:There is this automatic weapon named after its illustrious INventor...Kalashnikov. Working copies have been made by Afghan blacksmiths, though I suspect they had some machine tools. It is useful on the attack, and relatively speaking not hard to make.

And a wonderful twist that would be too! Have a South Harchong weapons smith invent the darned thing and force Charis to adapt more quickly than they planned.

That is the sort of twist RFC will throw out. Dohlar develops the automatic action and South Harchong will develop the KISSed version. Of course South harchong will find serious issues producing a sufficient number of rounds cheaply enough to really have a useful weapon. Automatic weapons drink ammunition like a man drinks water in the dessert.

Daryl wrote:It was only in the past year that I found out about my grandfather's use of a machine gun for an aggressive action in WW1 in the Middle East.

Just before the charge was called he commenced dropping in continuous enfilading fire along the defender's trenches. Because of the distance it cleared the front sandbags and landed in the trenches, causing the defenders to take cover.
Military historians had for years debated how an apparently suicidal action succeeded, but it now appears to have been solved.
So yes, a traditional heavy machine gun can be used for assault.

Enfilading fire comes from the side so would not have to pass over sandbags in front. Machine guns are considered light artillery. I recall lugging around a bar that could be attached to our MG's tripod that enabled precise high angle fire. I don't recall ever seeing it used but we knew it could be done. I don't know much about the Vickers but I imagine you'd have to use pretty high elevation to get fire out over a mile which would cause rounds to come in at a steeper angle than if had been horizontal. Apparently the Ottomans did not build even light overhead cover into their fortifications.