Girandoni air rifle

Expert snuggler wrote:A fixed position, like a fortress, could have a steam-powered air compressor and distribution lines. Wouldn't there be an advantage to needing to store less powder and not being limited by the cartridge manufacturing bottleneck?

Could you go full auto if not limited by fouling from black powder?

Expert snuggler wrote:A fixed position, like a fortress, could have a steam-powered air compressor and distribution lines.

peke wrote:I read somewhere (can't remember where exactly) that the shaped-charge effect was discovered by accident, like this: someone was doing some testing with explosive charges and armor plate, and the explosive charge in question had been accidentally pressed against a series of numbers in relief, so the metal-facing charge surface had letter-sized indentations. When the charge blew and the smoke cleared, the someone in question was surprised to discover that the plate was largely intact, but that the numbers had become gouged in the plate.

Is there any truth to this? Because I can totally see someone in Howswym's explosive shop accidentally doing something like this (or maybe set up to accidentally "discover" it)

wikipedia: shaped charges wrote:The Munroe effect is named after Charles E. Munroe, who discovered it in 1888. A civilian chemist working at the U.S. Naval Torpedo Station at Newport, Rhode Island, he noticed that when a block of explosive guncotton with the manufacturer's name stamped into it was detonated next to a metal plate, the lettering was cut into the plate. Conversely, if letters were raised in relief above the surface of the explosive, then the letters on the plate would also be raised above its surface. In 1894, Munroe constructed the first crude shaped charge

Rawb wrote:On the Gatling Gun issue; Gatling Guns have a couple critical weaknesses. They're mechanically complex, prone to breakdowns, and difficult to manufacture, but they're also limited to the same ranges and lines-of-sight as rifles.

lyonheart wrote:You seem to be trying to restrict the ICA to hand held light machine guns, as you in effect proscribe the Lewis Gun for the ICA.

Weird Harold wrote:

lyonheart wrote:You seem to be trying to restrict the ICA to hand held light machine guns, as you in effect proscribe the Lewis Gun for the ICA.

Not at all. The Lewis Gun fits the criteria of man-portable, Magazine fed, rifle caliber or smaller. It was usually Crew-served, but not always.

The ICA doesn't currently need tripod or limber mounted, crew-served "heavy" machine guns for defensive position because they're emphasizing mobility. Their Mortars and "Angle Guns" serve their needs for heavy, crew-served fire-power, without the employment restriction of of a "line-of-sight, rifle-range" weapon.

The ICA has learned from Gen. Custer that having the higher rate of fire of man-portable, magazine fed, repeating rifles will mean disaster for those with single-shot breech-loaders. The battery or two of Gatlings he left behind in favor of greater mobility in rough terrain probably wouldn't have prevented defeat, but they might have prevented a massacre. (unlikely because of Custer's laundry list of stupid decisions and the single-shot trapdoors issued to his troops.)

The Imperial Charisan Navy, OTOH could make good use of Hotchkiss revolving Cannon, or Bofors 40mm clones for close-in defense or even a "Ma Deuce" .50 BMG clone for close-in defense or light gun-ship armament. But the Navy has ships to hump its ammo and steam-power for higher rates of fire where needed. The Navy just doesn't have much use for rifle-caliber weapons.

Once the ICA has the capability to build "Gun Trucks" and tanks, they'll have a use for heavier machine guns. In the near future they'll profit more from general issue, select fire, magazine fed, shoulder-fired, rifle-caliber weapons. An AK, AR, or Garand (M14) deriviative than they will from crew-served, light artillery class, heavy machine guns.

lyonheart wrote:Hi Weird Harold,

Sigh.

Waiting for steam powered vehicles to carry crew served MG's is dangerous, if not completely unwarranted.

lyonheart wrote:Just out of curiosity, do you know of any army in the world over last hundred years since LMG's became available, that has refused to equip their foot infantry with medium and heavy MG's when they're available, just because they're a bit heavier than the LMG's?

lyonheart wrote:Your opposition to crew served machine guns for the ICA seems a little ridiculous, since the Maxim, Browning and even the 'baby' Gatling [60 lbs] all weigh rather less than the 3" mortars [234 lbs] the ICA infantry man handle behind them so well wherever they go, so your fervent antagonism is misplaced.

lyonheart wrote:Moving secretly to new positions or bounding forward with medium machine gun teams [at least a pair each] was demonstrated by Rommel in his WWI eastern campaigns, as described in his book, nor was he the inventor or only practitioner of this tactic.

lyonheart wrote:Then again, the ICA and the RSA cannot be on the offense everywhere all the time; for starters they dig in every night on the march, so using medium or 'heavy' MG's to help secure their perimeter makes a great deal more sense than relying solely on your one man MG's.

lyonheart wrote:Until a belt fed MG34 type becomes available, the limits of the magazine dependent Lewis/BAR/Bren LMG's cannot provide the the concentration of fire or mass on target that the medium and heavy can, given their higher rates of sustained fire they can accomplish missions that the LMG's cannot, providing suppression on the objective.

lyonheart wrote:From WWI onwards, crew served medium and heavy MG's have been used offensively by foot infantry, often taking advantage of surprise.

...

Thus the medium and heavy MG's are a win, win, win, proposition 3 times over in demonstrating the 9 accepted principles of war.

So yes the ICA is more than smart enough to use both types of MG's in their respective roles when the time comes to field them, without bothering about waiting for mechanical transport.