History of Byzantium in the 19th Century.

[Nobody]

Sorry, I understood what you meant by "hindsight", but what is the "20:20" supposed to mean?

[Carthaginian]

For example any type of rapid fire weapon even something as clumsy as a Gatling could have massive effects on the battlefield.  Also from an engineering point of view once smokeless powder comes about there is nothing really preventing nations from creating semi-auto or full auto battle rifles.  People of the time didn't know what exactly do to with the weapons of the time period let alone weapons that were technically possible but were not built or at least not built in large numbers.  All such weapons are before there time.

Uhm... I do not know why you are getting upset at Deseret having any rapid-fire weapons... especially in 1890 or later. If you will look, virtually every American military conflict after 1890 involved some use of belt-fed weapons for infantry support rather than as an 'artillery/support' type item. The Spanish-American war used Gatling and Colt rapid-fire weapons as infantry-support weapons (though the 1st US Vols viewed the Colts as far less desirable than the Gatlings) rather heavily.

I don't care about Europe, I don't care about Asia.
American forces understood the importance of rapid fire weapons for maneuver-based tactics... and often forces being deployed used their own local funds to purchase these weapons and ammunition in order to possess them.
So, your argument falls rather flat- because if a unit buys something on it's own because the command structure isn't thinking fast enough to keep up with tech, then you can bet it is inertia and idiocy that is preventing the adoption of a weapon rather than 'infeasibility' or 'lack of understanding.'

[miketr]

Sorry, I understood what you meant by "hindsight", but what is the "20:20" supposed to mean?

20:20 is a term to describe a person with GOOD vision. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity#Visual_acuity_expression

20 20 Hindsight is a term to describe a person who looks back in time with perfect hindsight with the benefit of knowing what happened.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/20-20+hindsight 

Michael

[miketr]

For example any type of rapid fire weapon even something as clumsy as a Gatling could have massive effects on the battlefield.  Also from an engineering point of view once smokeless powder comes about there is nothing really preventing nations from creating semi-auto or full auto battle rifles.  People of the time didn't know what exactly do to with the weapons of the time period let alone weapons that were technically possible but were not built or at least not built in large numbers.  All such weapons are before there time.

Uhm... I do not know why you are getting upset at Deseret having any rapid-fire weapons... especially in 1890 or later. If you will look, virtually every American military conflict after 1890 involved some use of belt-fed weapons for infantry support rather than as an 'artillery/support' type item. The Spanish-American war used Gatling and Colt rapid-fire weapons as infantry-support weapons (though the 1st US Vols viewed the Colts as far less desirable than the Gatlings) rather heavily.

First of all I didn't mention you or any one else.  Only other military thing I have looked at so far by other people is Carthaginian's Uniform pics.

Second off all how many Rapid Fire weapons in total did the US military take to Cuba and how where they setup on the battlefield?  Compare this number to the size of the total infantry force sent.

I don't care about Europe, I don't care about Asia.
American forces understood the importance of rapid fire weapons for maneuver-based tactics... and often forces being deployed used their own local funds to purchase these weapons and ammunition in order to possess them.
So, your argument falls rather flat- because if a unit buys something on it's own because the command structure isn't thinking fast enough to keep up with tech, then you can bet it is inertia and idiocy that is preventing the adoption of a weapon rather than 'infeasibility' or 'lack of understanding.'

See if you can find a copy of this and get back to me.

http://www.amazon.com/Infantry-John-English/dp/0275949729/

In short just because there were Gatling guns or whatever around doesn't make them a Vickers or Browning Machinegun.  Especially if people do NOT know what to do with them. 

Also please keep in mind that the army tech levels are BROAD categories that cover decade or decade in half time periods.  1905 Army Tech represents the first point where MG are in general army wide use in roles anything like what we would understand.  Again I am not saying there were no MG's before this point but I am saying their use, design, etc WAS in a state of flux.

Michael

[Tanthalas]

I was planing 1874ish for the Rifle, it will proly hang around until 190X when I will replace it with the OTL Remington Model 8 (which is a POS IMHO).  The Potato digger is just unique as its the only lever action MG ever built and I figured an 189X introduction for it (depends largly on the Infantry tech for when I introduce it).

anyway sorry for Hijacking the thread I was just trying to give examples of OTL guns that made for interesting fluf.

[miketr]

Tanthalas its no problem Carthaginian's fire and brimstone post confused me more than anything.

Just to clear up if you want to do a story about the M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun being R&D for your nation that is fine.  Very late 1880's first design, early 1890's pro-types and then in 1895 the design model is finished.  The next 10 years or whenever you get the 1905 tech the gun is around but is in very limited use.  Could be budget reasons, could lack of tactics to make use of weapon, big headed response of higher command, etc.

True story one of the reasons given against adoption of Bolt Action, Semi-Autos and later Full Auto weapons is generals were worried that the troops would waste ammo.  So you could do a story of an old general with white hair and mutton chop beard who hadn't seen combat in 20+ years bitching about the new wasteful 'toy'.  See link for visual. 

http://centuryofthebeard.blogspot.com/2008/06/ambrose-burnside.html

Just one possible way to have it come into being.

As to the Remington Model 8 it looks like its firing an intermediate round that is not as powerful as full rounds of that size.  Don't get me wrong it will kill anyone it hits in the right spot.  Still the .35 Remington has only 2/3 of the energy of say the .30-06 Springfield.  So its going to have a notable drop off performance as range increases.  So your units might have organic snipers at the squad level armed with something thats got more range.  This is just off the top of my head.

I would also suggest you go with the 5 round mag and it be clip fed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_%28ammunition%29#En_bloc

or a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripper_clip

The net effect is you have a weapon capable of high rates of fire for 5 shots along with poor range and reduced killing power.  I have never shot the gun myself but I take it that by POS its not a very reliable gun?

Michael   

[Tanthalas]

The action on the Modle 8 is very very prone to fouling from just about anything, its an example of a weapon that was built to far to exacting of tolerances.  Not exactly the best thing for an Infantry Rifle, as to the .35 Remington its actualy an upgrade over what I will have been using previously in the 44-40 Winchester and actualy superior to the 30-40 Krag in preformance

                                  Preformance Numbers
44-40 winchester      200 gr bullet 1,245 ft/s 688 ft·lbf
.35 Remington           200 gr bullet 2,084 ft/s 1,929 ft·lbf
30-40 Krag                200 gr bullet 1,974 ft/s 1,731 ft·lbf

the numbers come from my Hornady Reloading book so they should be fairly accurate, and as you can see the .35 Remington substantualy out preforms the 30-40 Krag.  In the long run IDK what ill end up doing, I have alot of ideas but most arnt very firm yet just more like generalizations, but if anyone wants Balistics data on a cart they intend to use just let me know and ill look it up.

[miketr]

Its something true of any type of self loader compared to bolt action; all to degrees of course.  My Marlin 75c .22 Semi-Auto I could fire 250 - 400 rounds and then I would start to get fouling problems.  Rounds either don't eject cleanly or bolt would catch part way open after the casing ejected and I would have to use the charging handle to close the breech.  Either it was time to think about wrapping it up for the day.  My grand fathers 81 DL .22 Bolt action could fire forever and not have problems.  That and my grand fathers gun is way more accurate, part of that is my gun is a carbine with a shorter barrel.  Still lots of found memories in both of those guns.

So excessive fouling I can understand that.  Now do you want to have such a weapon in a dry dusty environment like your nation has?

The 30 06 compared to other common rounds of the time

.30-06 Springfield    200 gr (13 g) Partition    2,569 ft/s  2,932 ft·lbf
.303 British Mark 7   174 gr (11.3 g) HPBT            2,500 ft/s  2,408 ft·lbf
8×57mm IS (.318)  154 gr (9.9 g)                     2,880 ft/s   2,845 ft·lbf

Like I said you are giving up a lot of mv and energy compared to common rounds of the time.  The German WW1 round is classic German thinking, light round and high MV.  You saw the same in their naval guns.  They went back to 197 gr bullet for WW2.

For me reliability is key, followed by stopping power.  From what you have said I question the former and that .35 Remington doesn't compare well to what US/UK/Germany had for rounds; IMHO. I am far from a gun export I own two guns the above mentioned .22s and have read some.

At anyrate tech levels rule battles and I don't see a problem with this weapon for 1905 tech.  It has issues and its bonuses.  Interesting choice for the flavor text.

Since I killed Russia I will steal some of their stuff.  In particular the 7.62×54 round and the Mosin–Nagant rifle it went with it.  So for smokeless power that will be the infantry weapon of Byzantium, Armory Rifle Model 1895 or something like that.

Michael

Michael

[Desertfox]

Oh hey... the Mondragon rifle shows up in 1887... Mwuhahahaha!!!

[TexanCowboy]

Sergeant Schlock's BFG 3 pound bolt action gun modified from a cannon appears in....1875. MWAHAHA!!!

[miketr]

Oh hey... the Mondragon rifle shows up in 1887... Mwuhahahaha!!!

If people want buggy infantry weapons with high rates of jams and miss fires as their standard weapon fine by me.  All I would say is that this is 1905 tech, and not 1895.

Again there is a reason besides bureaucratic inertia why it took so long for semi-auto and later full-auto battle rifles to appear.

Once again remember this is all flavor text.

Michael

[Tanthalas]

Oh hey... the Mondragon rifle shows up in 1887... Mwuhahahaha!!!

If people want buggy infantry weapons with high rates of jams and miss fires as their standard weapon fine by me.  All I would say is that this is 1905 tech, and not 1895.

Again there is a reason besides bureaucratic inertia why it took so long for semi-auto and later full-auto battle rifles to appear.

Once again remember this is all flavor text.

Michael

ROFL Yup, and previously I went for the bigest shoulder killer I could find (well and had any practical experiance with), this time im going for a combined cartrige initialy (its just for flavor realy but I thought it would be cool to use the same ammo for my Rifle and pistol initialy).  Honestly I may stay lever action and switch to the 30-30 in like 189X for rifles (about the time the US adopted the 30-40 Krag OTL) or perhaps ill stick with 44 cal for everything and "invent" the 444 Marlin for Rifle use.

[Carthaginian]

Tanthalas its no problem Carthaginian's fire and brimstone post confused me more than anything.

Just to clear up if you want to do a story about the M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun being R&D for your nation that is fine.  Very late 1880's first design, early 1890's pro-types and then in 1895 the design model is finished.  The next 10 years or whenever you get the 1905 tech the gun is around but is in very limited use.  Could be budget reasons, could lack of tactics to make use of weapon, big headed response of higher command, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1895_Colt-Browning_machine_gun
The M1895 was used in several battles in the Philippines and Cuba.
Gatlings were also extensively use in both conflicts.

The fact that idiots in power were slow to adopt them is not an issue... the real fact is that people in the U.S. Military actually sprung for them ON THEIR OWN NICKLES because they were so useful. They were not experimental models, they were not in limited production, and they were not fulkl of unrealized potential.

We are not dealing with old hide-bound military structures here.
The North American nations are, by and large, like the United States military... young, forming new tactics for a new environment, and developing the kind of organizational structures that were already set in stone in European nations. Heck, Acadia (which will have no automatic weapons that don't have cranks) will only be 10 years old at the start of the sim.

They will naturally be more open to new ideas than nations like Byzantium, if they are role-played correctly. :D

[Desertfox]

If people want buggy infantry weapons with high rates of jams and miss fires as their standard weapon fine by me.  All I would say is that this is 1905 tech, and not 1895.

Again there is a reason besides bureaucratic inertia why it took so long for semi-auto and later full-auto battle rifles to appear.

It was actually pretty reliable in dry climates. Yeah it will be less reliable than any bolt action, but when you have that amount of firepower, well jams are less significant. There was also a LMG (BAR equivalent) version produced.

Actually Mexico fully intended to equip the entire army with the new weapon, there was no bureaucratic inertia, the problem was of a different sort, cost. Mexico was too poor to afford all the required rifles, and didn't have the money to get them untill 1910, but the rifles where available since the early 1890s.

[Korpen]

Is not a debate about what sort of gun the cannon-fodder carry only marginally more important then what sort of swords they get?
I think an army with smoothbore muskets supported by QF-artillery will hands down beat an army with SLR;s and muzzle-loading artillery. Since 16th century artillery has been the main battlefield killer, and is the arm that matters.