New devices of war (howitzers to razor wire and all between)

Weird Harold wrote:

WeberFan wrote:Given that the Temple forces will likely attack in large numbers with significant breech-loading, rifled muskets soon, Charis needs a way to push vast amounts of fire downrange at close ranges. Can you even imagine the Temple forces encountering interlocking, final-protective-fires from machine guns? The shock and morale-disrupting effect would be staggering methinks...

The only problem with the Maxim is that it is a crew-served "heavy" weapon -- heavy both in terms of fire-power and in terms of literal weight. It is best suited to defensive works and trench warfare; it is NOT suited to the offensive needs of the ICA and RSA.

The ICA needs something mobile and and "personal" -- ie not requiring a crew or fixed position to be effective. Something with the fire-power of a "trench broom" and close to the range of a battle rifle but light and magazine fed so it doesn't slow down an assault...

I imagine that sort of tactical need may be covered by multiple systems.

Are rifles with magazines or a revolver mechanism near-future weapons for them? How about shotguns?

And is there maybe some room for something on the edge between a crew served infantry weapon and the very lightest of field artillery? The mortars are made for fairly quick assembly and disassembly, transport, and operation by small crews. Could they build to a similar design something like a Maxim gun - perhaps with the addition of a bipod with an axle and wheels for dragging around assembled, in a hurry or on level ground? Figure split the barrel, firing mechanisms, ammunition, and bipod assembly into four parts for transport and put them together near the site of use. Obviously, no one is going to be running, or sneaking, across fields with this assembled and only with difficulty in pieces, but it'd still be something that gets positioned and moved on the battlefield with far more flexibility, speed, and concealment than true artillery.

JeffEngel wrote:..snip..
Obviously, no one is going to be running, or sneaking, across fields with this assembled and only with difficulty in pieces, but it'd still be something that gets positioned and moved on the battlefield with far more flexibility, speed, and concealment than true artillery.

You'd be amazed how fast you can move heavy guns around... Here is a
video of the Royal Naval field Gun Competition in 1999.

Just for the sake of review, let's look at what the allies have already got: long range angle guns, shorter but portable angles, various types of mines, hand grenades, revolvers with 6 round cylinders, rifles with 10 round magazines, rifled cannon. Breaking over the horizon, but not quite available for use is smokeless powder. Also count steam for the Haarahlds, the riverclads and the cities.

Now think of the difficulties: industrial plant is still too small. They are having difficulty producing enough rifles to comletely equip the armies they have raised. Navy needs more hulls to cope with piracy threat and demand for steam engines far out strips the supply. And while back there was a thread wondering if enough ammumition was going to be available rifles and no one was going to convincingly argue that it would.

The point to all of this is that I think you guys are really talking about weapons for the next war. Poor old Howsmyn needs to allow his assembly lines settle in to produce what is already on tap along with expanding his capacity to the point where he can comfortably produce what it needed in adequate quantity. Continually having to accommodate new ideas works against that.

One thing they might manage without a lot of disruption would be larger magazines for the M96. Why not a 30 round clip rather than a 10? It seems to me that it could be designed to fit in the same hole in the bottom of the rifle without any change in the design of the rifle itself...

Don

JeffEngel wrote:I imagine that sort of tactical need may be covered by multiple systems.

Are rifles with magazines or a revolver mechanism near-future weapons for them? How about shotguns?

I'm sure that there will be multiple weapons systems over a wide range of options, I just don't see belt-fed heavy machine guns in the Maxim or Gatling styles as fitting the ICA's demonstrated preference for mobile tactics.

The ICA is already fielding a (detachable) magazine-fed bolt-action battle rifle. Adapting a BAR clone to use the same magazines as the standard issue battle-rifle wouldn't be all that difficult.

Revolver rifles didn't prove to be durable enough to be reliable, hence the move to lever-action and bolt-action battle rifles. Revolver cannon and rotating cannon/heavy caliber multi-barrel rifles were more successful but required crew-service and artillery carriages, limbers and caissons;

JeffEngel wrote:And is there maybe some room for something on the edge between a crew served infantry weapon and the very lightest of field artillery?

Of course there is; that's the role Gatlings, Hotchiss, "Mountain Guns," and heavy machine guns -- like the Browning MA-2 "Ma Duece" -- filled. For the most part, those guns are considered light artillery and require team-work and constant drill to be effective.

JeffEngel wrote:The mortars are made for fairly quick assembly and disassembly, transport, and operation by small crews. Could they build to a similar design something like a Maxim gun - perhaps with the addition of a bipod with an axle and wheels for dragging around assembled, in a hurry or on level ground?

JOAT provided a good video of what is possible with light or medium artillery. There are several others -- including this 23-minute WWII training film -- that show how heavy machine guns are moved around and employed. (NB: in WWII heavy machine guns were used to suppress enemy heavy machine guns and as light anti-aircraft guns. Charis doesn't have that problem. Yet.)

Modern -- Vietnam and later -- tactics rely on SAW (Squad Automatic Weapons) and select fire assault rifles rather than cumbersome heavy machine gun support.

n7axw wrote:The point to all of this is that I think you guys are really talking about weapons for the next war.

Almost certainly true. I will be very surprised if we see even a Colt M1911, Luger "parabellum" or Mauser "broom handle" clone as far as automatic weapons go.

n7axw wrote:One thing they might manage without a lot of disruption would be larger magazines for the M96. Why not a 30 round clip rather than a 10? It seems to me that it could be designed to fit in the same hole in the bottom of the rifle without any change in the design of the rifle itself...

I don't think they've got springs that are quite up to 30-round magazines, or even 20-round. They might be up to a 15-round mag for a BAR clone or M1 Garand clone using the same Mags as the M96, but I can't see that in the near future.

Weird Harold wrote:

n7axw wrote:The point to all of this is that I think you guys are really talking about weapons for the next war.

Almost certainly true. I will be very surprised if we see even a Colt M1911, Luger "parabellum" or Mauser "broom handle" clone as far as automatic weapons go.

n7axw wrote:One thing they might manage without a lot of disruption would be larger magazines for the M96. Why not a 30 round clip rather than a 10? It seems to me that it could be designed to fit in the same hole in the bottom of the rifle without any change in the design of the rifle itself...

I don't think they've got springs that are quite up to 30-round magazines, or even 20-round. They might be up to a 15-round mag for a BAR clone or M1 Garand clone using the same Mags as the M96, but I can't see that in the near future.

Just to probe a bit to prod yourself into explaining yourself a bit on this one, haven't they developed the high quality steel they need to make the springs? In terms of our own timeline, how good is the steel?

Don

Weird Harold wrote:

n7axw wrote:The point to all of this is that I think you guys are really talking about weapons for the next war.

Almost certainly true. I will be very surprised if we see even a Colt M1911, Luger "parabellum" or Mauser "broom handle" clone as far as automatic weapons go.

n7axw wrote:One thing they might manage without a lot of disruption would be larger magazines for the M96. Why not a 30 round clip rather than a 10? It seems to me that it could be designed to fit in the same hole in the bottom of the rifle without any change in the design of the rifle itself...

I don't think they've got springs that are quite up to 30-round magazines, or even 20-round. They might be up to a 15-round mag for a BAR clone or M1 Garand clone using the same Mags as the M96, but I can't see that in the near future.

There are other types of springs than compression springs that can be used in magazines.

You could for example combine compression springs with extension springs to get a uniform force distribution in the magazine regardless how much ammunition it contains.

You also have drum-magazines which can use wind-up springs. I doubt very much that springs is a problem for large magazines with the tech-level Charis has now.

n7axw wrote:Just to probe a bit to prod yourself into explaining yourself a bit on this one, haven't they developed the high quality steel they need to make the springs? In terms of our own timeline, how good is the steel?

Don

Just experience with M-16A1 20 round magazines that would jam if loaded with more than eighteen rounds.

Joat42 wrote:You also have drum-magazines which can use wind-up springs. I doubt very much that springs is a problem for large magazines with the tech-level Charis has now.

It is possible, even probable, that better magazine designs will happen, but not until they encounter some problems with the basic box magazine springs. The US had several decades of experience with magazine-fed weapons -- including the 100-round wind up drum of the Thompson SMG -- and they still couldn't build a reliable 20-round magazine in the 1970's because they didn't have a "spring steel" formula/design that worked.

(NB: the older 30-round (banana) magazine for the AK family worked better than the AR family's 20-round magazines, but the Russians had more experience with large-capacity magazines than the US.)

Weird Harold wrote:

WeberFan wrote:Given that the Temple forces will likely attack in large numbers with significant breech-loading, rifled muskets soon, Charis needs a way to push vast amounts of fire downrange at close ranges. Can you even imagine the Temple forces encountering interlocking, final-protective-fires from machine guns? The shock and morale-disrupting effect would be staggering methinks...

The only problem with the Maxim is that it is a crew-served "heavy" weapon -- heavy both in terms of fire-power and in terms of literal weight. It is best suited to defensive works and trench warfare; it is NOT suited to the offensive needs of the ICA and RSA.

The ICA needs something mobile and and "personal" -- ie not requiring a crew or fixed position to be effective. Something with the fire-power of a "trench broom" and close to the range of a battle rifle but light and magazine fed so it doesn't slow down an assault...

A couple of points:

1) The WWI, crew served vickers/maxim MG's were actually more mobile then you'd think, with them being able to be fired from the hip.
2) With the Church catching up with the weapon technology, it's going to come down to speed of movement, rather then sheer firepower. So I would think that the ICA is going to push for better (i.e. faster and more reliable) communications that can work in all types of weather.
3) With the increasing lethality of the weapons, defenses (i.e. trenches) are going to gain in importance - so the key point is going to be to attack strategically, and defend tactically. I.e. using speed to take a position (see Point 2 above) and quickly fortify it, and then force the Church to attack the entrenched ICA.

n7axw wrote:Actually, while Charis is still struggling to get its steel capacity up so that they have enough to manufacture rifles, cannon and iron clads, I doubt that such things as razor wire will be a very strong priority. They are increasing their industrial base, but as of the end of LAMA, things were still bottlenecked.

That being ssid, I think you have s good idea.

Don

I think that the biggest bottleneck is not the smelting of steel, or the construction of weapons.

The biggest restriction is manpower.

And so (to me) the best "New Device of War", is actually something that will increase manufacturing.


Smaller, more reliable steam engines. Engines able to be mounted in (initially) middle-sized factories (and finally, in small factories) - enabling the use of powered tools.

That would have the effect of releasing a relatively large manpower pool - that can then be used to either further expand the manufacturing sector, or go into the army/navy.


That is going to be the best "weapon" to develop....