[Spoiler] Machineguns

One thing that seems conspicuous by absence is the lack of any mention of machineguns, automatic weapons and self loading guns.

With smokeless powder I don't see any real hindrance to try constructing some, and after bolt actions I see 'can I make this go faster' as a pretty natural followup questions for someone to develop a gatling/cranked type weapon, if not go directly for using the firing itself.

While keeping machineguns under wraps would is clearly advantageous, I would still assume they get discussed somewhere, if only how to discourage certain people from developing them too far.

Whitecold wrote:One thing that seems conspicuous by absence is the lack of any mention of machineguns, automatic weapons and self loading guns.

I asked RFC about Gatling guns at a con, as they were something Duke Delthak, at least, could have built early on. He said we wouldn't be seeing them as they wouldn't be needed.

Things like Gatling guns or other machine guns are mainly defensive weapons, best used from dug in positions in fixed fortifications. Once the ICA was fully deployed in Siddarmark, they were on the offensive. Machine guns would have been far more useful to the Army of God or the Mighty Host than they would to the ICA, so like the sea bombs, it was a "let's not give the other side any ideas."

Whether we'll see them down the road is another matter.
______
Dennis

Problem is, that Charis would clearly won nothing out of making entrenched positions even MORE hard to penetrate. Without telegraph and radio, any kind of combined operations - like those that eventually broke the stalemate on Western Front in 1918 - would just be impossible. No ability to coordinate. So basically the war would deteriorate to "how many bodies you could threw on razor wire before our peoples decide that it would be simpler for them to revolt and shot your government. And maybe your moneybags too."

Dilandu wrote:Problem is, that Charis would clearly won nothing out of making entrenched positions even MORE hard to penetrate. Without telegraph and radio, any kind of combined operations - like those that eventually broke the stalemate on Western Front in 1918 - would just be impossible. No ability to coordinate. So basically the war would deteriorate to "how many bodies you could threw on razor wire before our peoples decide that it would be simpler for them to revolt and shot your government. And maybe your moneybags too."

Which is why machineguns may "develop" in response to a growing desire from Siddermark to invade Dohlar or for Desnair to invade Silkiah. If Charis is spread thin by activities of South Harchong, Desnair and Siddermark, they may need machineguns to adequately protect their international interests. Having machine guns available to defend against aggression may well be advantageous for Chairs' plans as a whole. It is Charis that wants to shift the playing field into economic competition. What better way than to increase the cost of aggression to those nations who choose NOT to compete in commerce rather than war?

PeterZ wrote:Which is why machineguns may "develop" in response to a growing desire from Siddermark to invade Dohlar or for Desnair to invade Silkiah. If Charis is spread thin by activities of South Harchong, Desnair and Siddermark, they may need machineguns to adequately protect their international interests. Having machine guns available to defend against aggression may well be advantageous for Chairs' plans as a whole. It is Charis that wants to shift the playing field into economic competition. What better way than to increase the cost of aggression to those nations who choose NOT to compete in commerce rather than war?

And also force any would-be aggressors to innovate a solution to machine guns.

Dilandu wrote:Problem is, that Charis would clearly won nothing out of making entrenched positions even MORE hard to penetrate. Without telegraph and radio, any kind of combined operations - like those that eventually broke the stalemate on Western Front in 1918 - would just be impossible. No ability to coordinate. So basically the war would deteriorate to "how many bodies you could threw on razor wire before our peoples decide that it would be simpler for them to revolt and shot your government. And maybe your moneybags too."

I am less wondering why Charis did not introduce them during the war, but why in the intervening years no one came up with something along, 'hey, if I tap of the gas of the barrel and lead it into a cylinder I can have it operate the bolt for me'.
I'd disagree with it leading to a complete stalemate. During WWI, and to a great extend during WW2 radio and telegraph were still available on a strategic basis only. Much was done with runners, and Charis tactics are essentially modern skirmisher tactics.
German Sturmtruppen tactics involved sending out highly coordinated small squads that operated with a lot of initiative and little guidance from behind, overcoming the issue of poor communications by not trying to coordinate everything, and Charis assault battalions seem very much modeled after those Sturmtruppen.

I see the point of the inner circle wanting to hold machineguns in reserve, not because they cannot be overcome, but just because it is another advantage they could still keep in store for a bit longer.
I am more doubtful on how much longer it will take until it automatic weapons are invented anyway, or if I am missing some breakthrough.

Whitecold wrote:I'd disagree with it leading to a complete stalemate. During WWI, and to a great extend during WW2 radio and telegraph were still available on a strategic basis only. Much was done with runners, and Charis tactics are essentially modern skirmisher tactics.

Er... what?

Meet the WW2 SCR-536 radio.



Even in World War 1, radio was pretty common on frontlines, and wires were literally the nerve pathways of entire armies. Most of communication outside the small units were made through wires.

PeterZ wrote: It is Charis that wants to shift the playing field into economic competition. What better way than to increase the cost of aggression to those nations who choose NOT to compete in commerce rather than war?

Because the Britain ended World War 1 nearly broke. There are no victors among participants of the war of attrition; only among those who does not participate for long. Like the only one who actually won the World War 1 were USA (who stayed out of it until the Entente victory became obvious), and Japan (who just didn't try very hard to participate).

Dilandu wrote:

PeterZ wrote: It is Charis that wants to shift the playing field into economic competition. What better way than to increase the cost of aggression to those nations who choose NOT to compete in commerce rather than war?

Because the Britain ended World War 1 nearly broke. There are no victors among participants of the war of attrition; only among those who does not participate for long. Like the only one who actually won the World War 1 were USA (who stayed out of it until the Entente victory became obvious), and Japan (who just didn't try very hard to participate).

Agreed. My point is that South Harchong, Desnair and Siddermark all have reasons to be aggressive. Regardless of whether machineguns are deployed or not, those nations will be motivated to launch an aggressive war. Increasing the cost of launching it may deter them from starting.

Given the turmoil that will come from the Visitation of Schueler, no amount of deterrence may be enough to stop the aggression. That turmoil may well breed violence elsewhere to demand Charisian attention. Yeah, no one wins a war of attrition. That doesn't mean such a war is avoidable. In that case better to have as many advantages as possible in the national arsenal.

If the defender has enough advantages, the war might end inconclusively which I think might be better for Charis' or the IC's purposes. Anyone starting a war risks sticking their junk into a meat grinder but if the defender breaks first it might still be "worth" doing. So ensuring an intelligent defender has decisive advantages might do a lot to limit the fallout of warmongering.

Though it'll be interesting to see if or how RFC does WW1 style warfare where one side is smart enough not to keep sending troops straight at machine guns.