Machine guns

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).

lyonheart wrote: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.

One point that hasn't been mentioned is the difference between select-fire and automatic-only.

Assault rifles, being select fire, probably wouldn't be used in full-auto during a charge. MPs wouldn't have the range to be useful to cavalry, although they are often silenced which would be useful for cavalry.

I'm not sure what would work best for Cavalry, but of the choices discussed so far, an assault rifle in single or three-round-burst would be acceptable -- maybe a short barreled or bull-pup version with silencer?

Weird Harold wrote:

lyonheart wrote: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.

One point that hasn't been mentioned is the difference between select-fire and automatic-only.

Assault rifles, being select fire, probably wouldn't be used in full-auto during a charge. MPs wouldn't have the range to be useful to cavalry, although they are often silenced which would be useful for cavalry.

I'm not sure what would work best for Cavalry, but of the choices discussed so far, an assault rifle in single or three-round-burst would be acceptable -- maybe a short barreled or bull-pup version with silencer?

Just a quick note - according to textev, Charis has 'mounted infantry' not traditional cavalry. I'd expect a full-up rifle or at worst a carbine. Their doctrine calls for using pistols - either double barrel or the new revolvers - for response to close ambush for suppression. If the enemy isn't in pistol range, then break contact or dismount to engage as infantry.

There's no real need for a dedicated cavalry gun right now - they aren't planning on fighting from the saddle.

Just my 2 cents,
Dave

Lazalarlives wrote:Just a quick note - according to textev, Charis has 'mounted infantry' not traditional cavalry.

Good point. At worst, they'd field a a short barreled version of whatever the infantry uses.

The "Mounted Rifles" actually used regular rifles (the horses were just to get from point A to point B more quickly than any marching column of Infantry), and during the later part of the Boer War, the Canadian Mounted Rifles had sections of Colt machine guns in support (limbered up and towed behind a team on a small wheeled mount)

Since the Colt was rather unreliable, it wasn't very popular and phased out as quickly as practical. Sadly, although the Canadian Army raised 14 battalions of CMR's during the Great War, the conditions on the Western Front precluded then being used in their mobile role. The Australian "Lighthorsemen" fighting the Turks in the Middle East are probably a better example of what is possible with Great War organization and technology.

An Assault Rifle might be good for some elements of the ICA at this time (I can see the Imperial Marines using them for boarding and storming ashore), but overall, I suspect that the advantages of long range fire and lower logistical requirements (primarily ammunition supply) will tell against the adoption of assault rifles in the short term. A full power rifle cartridge with smokeless powered also simplifies logistics since both the rifle and squad/platoon supporting weapons (BAR/Bren/Lewis Gun type weapons) as well as the machine guns can all use the same round. I am in agreement that whatever weapons are developed at this point, they won't reach the troops in any large numbers before the end of this war.

Thucydides wrote:... I suspect that the advantages of long range fire and lower logistical requirements (primarily ammunition supply) will tell against the adoption of assault rifles in the short term. ...

Assault Rifles were adopted as primary small arms because of several studies that showed there was little or no advantage to long=range fire. Most troopers didn't fire at long range, and those that did generally just wasted the shot.

There is a need for long-range sniper fire, but the vast majority of soldiers don't need and won't use rifle fire beyond 100-150 yards. Most won't fire beyond fifty yards.

As for logistical requirements, the lighter weight of mid-range ammo, like 5.56 NATO or 7.62x41 Russian, was another reason for the wide adoption of Assault Rifles -- more bullets per pound of resupply. I would envision a typical ammunition resupply for an infantry company as something on the order of 500 rounds of full-power sniper ammo 50,000 rounds of Mid-range Assault Rifle ammo and 5,000 rounds of Pistol ammo.

Operational research in the post WWII period suggested that the average combat range was 300m, which was one of the reasons to switch to assault rifles from battle rifles (although NATO did not make the switch for many decades after WWII; only the British were set to go to the EM-2 firing the .280 round in the post war world, but political pressure and logistical realities swung NATO to 7.62 X 51).

Most NATO member states issued battle rifles firing 7.62 X 51 right up until the 1980's, and only switched to the "new" generation of assault rifles for political and logistical reasons (the United States had adopted each round in question and her clout and buying power ensured that NATO could access vast quantities of US ammunition, and the Americans wanted to be able to access "their" ammunition wherever they went).

I can also mention from personal experience that many enemies around the world have recognized the limitations of 5.56 X 45 ammunition (regardless of how "hot" it is or if you use even a full sized 18" barrel) and now engage from beyond 300m, making carrying 7.62mm weapons imperative on the modern battlefield. I suspect that the next generations of rifle and support weapons will probably settle on something like 7mm caseless telescoped ammunition in order to maximize range, barrier penetration and terminal effects while remaining light enough for soldiers to carry lots of rounds and have control over their weapons while firing on automatic. (Rifles will probably be bullpup designs to allow for full length barrels in a compact package).

For the sorts of battles being fought in Safehold, where enemies still generally face off over an open field and move relatively slowly (non mechanized troops), long range bolt action rifles will be more than adequate for the task, and having rifle calibre support weapons will only add to the effectiveness (along with mortars and artillery, of course).

Thucydides wrote:For the sorts of battles being fought in Safehold, where enemies still generally face off over an open field and move relatively slowly (non mechanized troops), long range bolt action rifles will be more than adequate for the task, and having rifle calibre support weapons will only add to the effectiveness (along with mortars and artillery, of course).

Except that lately the battles are taking place at night, when long range effectiveness is less important. The church particularly seems to be aware that darkness is the only thing that will allow them to make use of their greater numbers. I know claymores are heavy- and are one shot items-but they (and hand grenades) supply the MG sort of defensive firepower at this point.