Future weapons based on LAMA small SPOILER.

mistwalker wrote:

Yes, you could certainly put in some kind of retarding hardware, but why?

well IIRC it was the bolt shape which was used to regulate rate of fire of MG42 as per why to lower it you yourself pointed out that the metal may not be up to the standards to withstand high rate of fire so by lowering it you wont make barrel too hot, and with a quick barrel change you may have a workable weapon system.

You might be interested in watching this You Tube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh8lDgV993A It shows the firing of an 850 round burst out of an M60E4. Barrel technology moves on. But I wouldn't want to touch the thing just afterward.

been there and done that on C6, and had a second degree burns on palm of my right hand to prove it. But we had 6 ammo boxes likned together. As per ammo links I think it would be an easy task to make a die and have a pneumatic stumping machine making links by hundreds per minute as the steel doesn't have to be top quality

I have to agree that you could do all this. But why bother when other designs are simpler to make and work quite well?

Damonby wrote:
Hi Bob G,

I agree that the potential of a million Harghonese to cause problems for the ICA & RSA is not to be discounted.

I just don't see any Harchong army overwhelming a dug in ICA contingent unless RFC allows them to attack at the edge of a forest like the Dolhar army did in LAMA.

Against that mass of men, the ICA won't be trying to cut them off. It will be a case of find a good killing ground, dig in, and pile up the bodies.

Can't wait to read what really happens.

It seems to me that towards the end of LAMA the series is headed to cutting off the logistics.

One army is going around the north headed to the back side of the Sylman Gap.

Another army just went around the Sylkiah/Dohlar forces in the South.

And don't forget the operation to re-take Claw Island. The LAMA book really didn't go into why this operation was done, in fact it was kind of a surprise to taking forces from the main theater of battle.

BUT this will open up a second front for Dohlar, and the Harchong Army and supplies, i.e. food almost have to come in through the Gulf of Dohlar which just got much more difficult.

A million man Harchong Army is going to take an awful lot of grub and forage.

Cut them off early and you don't have to fight them.

Gunny wrote:
It seems to me that towards the end of LAMA the series is headed to cutting off the logistics.

One army is going around the north headed to the back side of the Sylman Gap.

Another army just went around the Sylkiah/Dohlar forces in the South.

And don't forget the operation to re-take Claw Island. The LAMA book really didn't go into why this operation was done, in fact it was kind of a surprise to taking forces from the main theater of battle.

BUT this will open up a second front for Dohlar, and the Harchong Army and supplies, i.e. food almost have to come in through the Gulf of Dohlar which just got much more difficult.

A million man Harchong Army is going to take an awful lot of grub and forage.

Cut them off early and you don't have to fight them.

The book did discuss this indirectly when it was suggested that Samson's Land would also make a good coaling station/base. Claw island is a prelude to deploying the KH VIIs in the Gulf of Dohlar. Those ships and any other steamers operating with them in the Gulf will be needing a good supply of coal.

The ICN appear to be planning to destroy one port city after another in the Gulf. Oh Goody!

As of the end of LAMA, the river ironclads were fitted with 6”/45 breechloading guns with recoil brakes firing "brown powder" shells. Assumming the weight of this six inch piece is reasonable, an army version could be developed, or maybe already has been.

alj_sf wrote:Considering how long it took to get a reliable brake at high fire rate (the 75 could fire in short bursts faster than bolt rifles), and that you absolutely need smokeless powder to make that one work, even with advance knowledge it may a bit too much to go directly to the big 155s.

Gunny wrote:


I have to agree that you could do all this. But why bother when other designs are simpler to make and work quite well?

Because earlier design like maxim or Browning M1919 are water cooled and quiet heavy and guns like Bren or Lewis gun are gas operated which is not introduced to Safehold yet and on the other hand MG 42 is not only great design easy to manufacture,is also recoil operated roller-locked. Also I did not take a 1918 BAR under consideration because of the internal working of the system were overly complicated to produce. I was looking for a system which can be use at squad level weights under 25 lbs( mg 42 is a 2 crew weapon with 50 rounds belt ) and I know from personal experience that a ammo carrying member of the crew can carry more than 200 rounds easily, while still carrying his own rifle. And if its "too much" of a weapon for a squad it could be easy fit one or even two at the platoon level, not like earlier versions which are much heavier which could fit only on the company level. All this is only a speculation and only RFC know what will come next.

jmbm wrote:As of the end of LAMA, the river ironclads were fitted with 6”/45 breechloading guns with recoil brakes firing "brown powder" shells. Assumming the weight of this six inch piece is reasonable, an army version could be developed, or maybe already has been.

And if a land version of that 6"/45 is not light enough, then Charis could simply apply the same advances to their existing 4 inch field gun.

Henry Brown wrote:

jmbm wrote:As of the end of LAMA, the river ironclads were fitted with 6”/45 breechloading guns with recoil brakes firing "brown powder" shells. Assumming the weight of this six inch piece is reasonable, an army version could be developed, or maybe already has been.

And if a land version of that 6"/45 is not light enough, then Charis could simply apply the same advances to their existing 4 inch field gun.

I believe they discussed the ICA versions of the new 6". They would be able to fire the same shells as the naval version. That's one of the reasons to begin the new lines of shells immediately. I doubt the ranges will be nearly the same. I recalled that those ICA versions wouldn't be ready until some time later.

The ICN 6in/45 gun might have a tube too long for ICA land use. Most WWI artillery had shorter tubes. For instance, this modern (in 1917) 155mm gun,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_de_1 ... _Schneider

was a 155/15 not 45. A shorter tube would make an ICA piece lighter.

PeterZ wrote:I believe they discussed the ICA versions of the new 6". They would be able to fire the same shells as the naval version. That's one of the reasons to begin the new lines of shells immediately. I doubt the ranges will be nearly the same. I recalled that those ICA versions wouldn't be ready until some time later.

I meant to say the ICA version of the 6" firing the new shells without the rifling bolts.

jmbm wrote:The ICN 6in/45 gun might have a tube too long for ICA land use. Most WWI artillery had shorter tubes. For instance, this modern (in 1917) 155mm gun,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_de_1 ... _Schneider

was a 155/15 not 45. A shorter tube would make an ICA piece lighter.

PeterZ wrote:I believe they discussed the ICA versions of the new 6". They would be able to fire the same shells as the naval version. That's one of the reasons to begin the new lines of shells immediately. I doubt the ranges will be nearly the same. I recalled that those ICA versions wouldn't be ready until some time later.

jmbm wrote:As of the end of LAMA, the river ironclads were fitted with 6”/45 breechloading guns with recoil brakes firing "brown powder" shells. Assumming the weight of this six inch piece is reasonable, an army version could be developed, or maybe already has been.

alj_sf wrote:Considering how long it took to get a reliable brake at high fire rate (the 75 could fire in short bursts faster than bolt rifles), and that you absolutely need smokeless powder to make that one work, even with advance knowledge it may a bit too much to go directly to the big 155s.

Are you sure ? I remember them still on marsilly carriages. That is a very big difference as it need to be repositioned after each firing, unlike a 75 aero/hydraulic brake.

There was discussions of guns with hydro brakes but in pit fixed versions (both with hydro or weights balances brakes) that you cannot fit on any carriage.