Gun evolution

Entrenchments have been a feature of warfare for a long time (Swiss pikemen were broken trying to charge gunners protected by entrenchments in the 1500's), so machine-guns won't materially change that.

I suspect the introduction of large numbers of firearms and the ability to deliver a heavy weight of fire, either through rifles or artillery or both, will drive the CoGA forces to start digging in, while the technology to make automatic weapons similar to Gatling or other multibarreled machine-guns will be bypassed by the Empire simply because of the size and weight of these things (most armies treated them as Artillery, and Custer refused to take them on his final mission because they would have slowed down his column of Cavalry).

Given this, tactics become standardized into fixing the CoGA forces with rifle fire and horse artillery, forcing them to dig in, then outflanking or bypassing the dug in forces and striking towards the rear to disrupt the reserves and lines of communication. IF the dug in force is too large to bypass, or has managed to dig in to a piece of vital ground, then continue hammering them with fire while using traditional seigecraft (digging saps and mines) to reduce the position. With a properly conducted siege, the CoGA forces will be starved and demoralized when the breach is made, leading to rapid defeat and surrender (or the CoGA forces retreating under cover of darkness).

There are examples of this kind of fighting during the American Civil War, and in some of the colonial wars common during that time period as well.

Morden wrote:they're on the verge of it now they have the concept of brass cartridges in production, so its only a matter of time. but its still something which will take time...

so far they've had something close to 200 years of advancement in firearms within a few short years. I think it still may be a year or two before they have cartridge production high enough to warrant automatic weapons, but more so because they have to build the infrastructure to make it work well.

automatics are far more prone to problems than single shot or even cartridge based weapons that are coming into production.

with the current black powder they're using it would be a recipe for disaster, but once they get the gun-cotton sorted and ready for use it will be a lot better

In the evolution of the gun on Safehold it is more like 4-500 years.

When Merlin first appeared the Matchlock musket was the standard firearm with a few and expensive matchlock rifles these weapons first appeared 1450 and were obsolete by around 1700.

The Flintlock first appeared in the early 17th century around 1620-1630 and lasted until the early 19th century.

Percussion cap weapons first appeared in the 1820's

Cartridge based weapons first appeared in the 1840's with the rim fire and centerfire appearing in the late 1850's

Currently the ICA/MC is using a bolt-action rifle which IIRC first appeared in the 1870's or 80's

Thucydides wrote:Entrenchments have been a feature of warfare for a long time (Swiss pikemen were broken trying to charge gunners protected by entrenchments in the 1500's), so machine-guns won't materially change that.

...

There are examples of this kind of fighting during the American Civil War, and in some of the colonial wars common during that time period as well.

But the machine gun DID change entrenchments into Trench Warfare -- a matter of scale and casualties. Charis can't afford to build and man trench-work that span 400 miles or so.

The huge lines of entrenchments that crossed the continent of Europe in the Great War are more a function of the scale of industrial warfare than the introduction of the machine gun.

Large scale entrenchments were a feature of the American Civil War, especially towards the end as Grant closed the circle around Richmond, but had been a feature of the that war early on. The British also ran into entrenched enemy forces during the Boer War, usually with disastrous results.

What made the Great War different was the force to space ratio was much higher than the earlier wars. European Powers could raise and equip armies of millions of men and pack them into a relatively compressed battlespace using all the developed technology and techniques developed during the industrial revolution. While even large armies could be lost in the vast undeveloped spaces of America or Africa, in Europe vital military objective were relatively close together, and could not be easily flanked or bypassed (usually this just meant you ended up advancing towards another objective close by). This also meant that huge armies could be effectively supplied with all their war fighting needs for the duration of the war.

You can actually see this dynamic at work on the Eastern Front of the Great War. Since that part of Europe was relatively undeveloped, and the bulk of the Triple Alliance forces were on the Western Front, there was much more scope for armies to manoeuvre. Since most of the armies were suffering from logistical issues on that front (the Russians and Austro Hungarians were far behind their counterparts in railway building, for example), the scale and scope of battles and the overall tempo of the war on that front was much slower than in the West. Subsidiary fronts such as Africa, the TransJordan and Mesepotamia also had a much different dynamic than the Western Front.

Put troops in an area where there is a heavy weight of fire and they will dig in.

Thucydides wrote:Put troops in an area where there is a heavy weight of fire and they will dig in.

True, and short of a massed artillery barrage, there is no heavier weight of fire than a dug-in heavy machine gun.

Weird Harold wrote:

Thucydides wrote:Put troops in an area where there is a heavy weight of fire and they will dig in.

True, and short of a massed artillery barrage, there is no heavier weight of fire than a dug-in heavy machine gun.

Don't get to wrapped around the axel about this. Even in the Great War, British troops could deliver devastating firepower with rifles alone. During the battle of Loos, the British only had 2 machine-guns per battalion, yet their rifle fire was so fast and accurate the attacking Germans were mown down in droves.

ACW soldiers also faced storms of fire delivered from muzzle loading black powder rifles and canister shells from smoothbore cannon, to the point that frontal assaults were essentially suicide (Fredricksburg and Malvern Hill were excellent examples of this).

And if you really want to argue the point, I'm sure the French knights at Agincourt could discuss the effects of heavy fire on their advance...

Given what we know about Safehold, any machine-gun they develop at this period will most likely resemble the heavy multi barrel weapons like Gatling guns or the Nordenfelt Gun, which were large enough to be treated as artillery. Since the Imperial forces use mobile war strategically and need to move quickly, it is likely they may choose to leave these sorts of weapons lout of the order of battle in favour of real artillery.

Thucydides wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:True, and short of a massed artillery barrage, there is no heavier weight of fire than a dug-in heavy machine gun.

Don't get to wrapped around the axel about this. Even in the Great War, British troops could deliver devastating firepower with rifles alone.

I'm not, really. It is just that the Maxim Machine Gun is often cited as a major contributing factor in the extent of trench warfare in WWI and in the inability to break the deadlock.

Thucydides wrote:Given what we know about Safehold, any machine-gun they develop at this period will most likely resemble the heavy multi barrel weapons like Gatling guns or the Nordenfelt Gun, which were large enough to be treated as artillery. Since the Imperial forces use mobile war strategically and need to move quickly, it is likely they may choose to leave these sorts of weapons lout of the order of battle in favour of real artillery.

That is essentially what I've been arguing; Gatling and Maxim style machine guns don't suit Charis' style. Especially since they aren't far from the M1 Garand, Browning Automatic Rifle, or the AK-47. Any of those full or semi auto rifles would suit Charis better, but I doubt we'll see them by the end of the current war; they are weapons for the next war.

The Maxim gun fired about 600 rounds/minute. A platoon of the Charisian Army consists of 57 men and with the old single shot capped rifle they can fire at 6 rounds/minute each. This gives them a rate of fire about half of the Maxim gun. They will be swapping out for the M96 eventually which will up their rate of fire to between 15 to 20 rounds/minute or a rate of fire of close to twice the rate of fire for the Maxim gun. So long as they can keep their army supplied with rounds, I don't see the need for a machine gun at this time.

iranuke wrote:The Maxim gun fired about 600 rounds/minute. A platoon of the Charisian Army consists of 57 men and with the old single shot capped rifle they can fire at 6 rounds/minute each. This gives them a rate of fire about half of the Maxim gun. They will be swapping out for the M96 eventually which will up their rate of fire to between 15 to 20 rounds/minute or a rate of fire of close to twice the rate of fire for the Maxim gun. So long as they can keep their army supplied with rounds, I don't see the need for a machine gun at this time.

The "need for a machine gun" lies in your numbers: Two of those Maxims require a minimum crew of three; that's six people putting out the same amount of fire as Fifty-seven troopers armed with the latest bolt-actions. That's pretty much a 10:1 manpower advantage for the Machine gun.

The disadvantage is the the Maxim or Gatling are cumbersome crew-served artillery pieces where the Bolt Action rifles are individually mobile and versatile.

Given OWL and Merlin's encyclopedic knowledge of history, I really expect Charis's next firearm development to be similar to the AK-47; made of stamped metal with low machining tolerances, the AK-47 fits the industrial capabilities and battlefield conditions of Safehold a lot better than a Maxim, M1 Garand, BAR/BMG, or M-16 clones would.

Weird Harold wrote:

iranuke wrote:The Maxim gun fired about 600 rounds/minute. A platoon of the Charisian Army consists of 57 men and with the old single shot capped rifle they can fire at 6 rounds/minute each. This gives them a rate of fire about half of the Maxim gun. They will be swapping out for the M96 eventually which will up their rate of fire to between 15 to 20 rounds/minute or a rate of fire of close to twice the rate of fire for the Maxim gun. So long as they can keep their army supplied with rounds, I don't see the need for a machine gun at this time.

The "need for a machine gun" lies in your numbers: Two of those Maxims require a minimum crew of three; that's six people putting out the same amount of fire as Fifty-seven troopers armed with the latest bolt-actions. That's pretty much a 10:1 manpower advantage for the Machine gun.

The disadvantage is the the Maxim or Gatling are cumbersome crew-served artillery pieces where the Bolt Action rifles are individually mobile and versatile.

Given OWL and Merlin's encyclopedic knowledge of history, I really expect Charis's next firearm development to be similar to the AK-47; made of stamped metal with low machining tolerances, the AK-47 fits the industrial capabilities and battlefield conditions of Safehold a lot better than a Maxim, M1 Garand, BAR/BMG, or M-16 clones would.

I think that I agree with you on your main point, Harold. But those are weapons for the next war. M96s will probably be the final stage for this war.

Don