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.

Your probably talking about the M1919 LMG it had a .30 cal belt fed with either air or water cooling.

Submachineguns can deliver high volumes of fire, but they use pistol ammunition and have the limitations of pistol rounds (mostly in terms of range and stopping power).

Even if SMG's become the standard issue weapon of the Infantry, there will still be a need for rifle calibre machine-guns. The difference in range, rate of fire and the ability of the larger rounds fro chew through light fortifications (wooden walls, single layer masonry, or other improvised cover) more than make up for any drawbacks due to weight, ammunition supply or other logistical considerations.

A MAG-58 (L7A1 GPMG for the UK; M-240 for the USA) can fire with an effective range of @ 800m o its bipod; mounted securely on a tripod and the effective range increases to 1800m (and a good crew with a map and spotter can fire at indirect targets up to 2500m). The Browning M-1919 has a different mounting system, but is still effective to over 1000m, as is the MG-42 on its tripod.

Going bigger, the M-2 HMG has an effective range of 2000m, and the bullet is large enough to chew through much heavier cover and even light armour. While it is quite large and bulky, in the Second World War the US Army man packed it with a 3 man crew and a full infantry squad to protect the gun on the move and carry extra ammunition.

Indeed, with many early machine gun designs, the important thing was to move with anything from a squad to an entire platoon, in order to protect the weapon while the crew was moving it, setting up or clearing stoppages, and to carry ammunition for the gunners. Even the Lewis Gun (which was a sort of LMG for its day) was used in this fashion by the Canadian Army, one gun accompanied by several infantrymen carrying satchels of preloaded drums of ammunition. (As an aside, the "Bomb" section and Rifle Grenade sections in the platoon also consisted of a bomber (who threw hand grenades) or a grenadier (who fired rifle grenades) accompanied by several ammunition carriers).

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).

One final aside. The French developed tactics based on an automatic rifle in each squad in 1903, although no such weapon existed anywhere at the time. Sadly, despite the advanced thinking about dismounted tactics, the design of the actual automatic rifle was less inspired, resulting in the dreadful Fusil Mitrailleur Modele 1915 CSRG "Chauchat". 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.

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.

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.