• The Sietch will shortly be brought offline for HPG systems maintenance. Please remain calm and do not start any interstellar wars while ComStar is busy. May the Peace of Blake be with you. Precentor Dune
  • Hey (name)! This is a general announcement to all of our members that we have a growing Alternate History and Creative Writing section that is increasingly seeing new content. If you haven't taken a look lately, please do so and perhaps leave a comment or reaction if you read something you like! Let's support our writers!
  • For those of you who would like to support the Sietch financially, subscriptions are BACK. Simply click on Account Upgrades and you will be able to upgrade your account!
  • The 'Comrade' title is now available in a fetching communist red for purchase by all of you capitalists who survived the Sietch gulag during the people's revolution. And in the spirit of all communists everywhere, it was broken until the capitalist pig dogs fixed it. ;)
  • Your beloved Boot here with a confession. The Boot tangled its laces and failed to properly set up the new Comrade user title. Thanks to the kind intercession of Emperor Tippy this failure has been corrected and the new user title is now actually on sale to everybody.

Military General military questions thread

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
11,485
The Slow RoF was actually why it was more accurate.
High RoF means lots of recoil and difficult handling.
The long barrel also helped.
Oh I know. The M20B fires slower and has a longer barrel then the SAW.
 

Buba

A total creep
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Reaction score
641
PPSh-41 was partly (at least the 71 rnd drum mag) copied from a earlier Finnish SMG
The PPSh and PPS share ammunition and mags - otherwise these are two quite different weapons.

The SVT needing cleaning - I've read the same thing about the M16. Different maintanance needs than the weapon it replaced - everybody needs to learn that ...

The Germans copying the SVT's features - for some reason the Germans had a horror of making holes in the barrel to draw off gas to operate the loading mechanism (used by French since 1895 or so) and tried to make a gas trapping mechanism to work (which the Czechs had barely got to work in the late 1920s).
 
Last edited:

Val the Moofia Boss

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Reaction score
700
2.Mortars - no matter 81,60 or 120mm,they could be made before WW1.Why nobody did so?
Mortars were used by ships during the age of sail to bombard forts and settlements along the coast. Mortars were generally not used on regular warships because the decks of the ships were not designed to withstand the downward recoil force of a mortar aimed upwards. Mortars were used on smaller, dedicated siege ships called bomb vessels. The mortars were made very large and very heavy to withstand the force of their own charge.

Mortars had two types of ammo: explosive shot and carcass shot. Explosive shot were big cast iron spheres banded together and filled with explosives and a lit fuse. Carcass shot were incendiary ammo, filled with burnables like tar and pitch that would spread upon detonation or the destruction of the ball. The fuses of explosive and carcass shot were lit, then the shot was dropped into the mortar and fired into the air. Carcass shot was occasionally used in regular cannons, but they were not very effective against other ships, typically splattering on the hull like a paintball. Mortars were inaccurate, used for general area bombardment.

Outside of use by the navy, I think mortars might have been used on land by forces trying to hide their position, as they fired in an arc and did not require direct line of sight (ie the mortar team could hide behind some hills and shoot at an enemy fort), but I'm not too sure about that.
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Joined
Jan 6, 2021
Reaction score
1,700
Outside of use by the navy, I think mortars might have been used on land by forces trying to hide their position, as they fired in an arc and did not require direct line of sight (ie the mortar team could hide behind some hills and shoot at an enemy fort), but I'm not too sure about that.
Like you said, the mortar was primarily a siege weapon used to hit targets over a high wall or some other sort of obstruction that could block the LoF of a regular cannon, but aiming was haphazard and it was just mostly random lobbing TBH.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
11,485
They can be used for sieges or to attack large formations if your Mortars are able to be moved easily, which early ones were nkt.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,524
Like you said, the mortar was primarily a siege weapon used to hit targets over a high wall or some other sort of obstruction that could block the LoF of a regular cannon, but aiming was haphazard and it was just mostly random lobbing TBH.
Indeed - but with new technology,you could made medium mortars as fieldartillery before WW1.I am interested,why nobody tried that approach.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 25, 2019
Reaction score
6,945
Indeed - but with new technology,you could made medium mortars as fieldartillery before WW1.I am interested,why nobody tried that approach.
They did. Coehorn Mortars were used as field artillery in the early 1700s past the US civil war, f'rex. It's just that, again, highly difficult to aim compared with shooting straight with a cannon so mortars were more niche than cannons were.
 

Buba

A total creep
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Reaction score
641
Indeed - but with new technology,you could made medium mortars as fieldartillery before WW1.I am interested,why nobody tried that approach.
Pre-WWI the main job of field artillery was to shoot shrapnel at the enemy - and canon were better at this than howitzers or mortars.
 

Buba

A total creep
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Reaction score
641
Speaking of howitzers - I had a look at the WWII Japanese howitzer:
Looks neat - so, what did the Japanese sacrifice to make so light? I eyeball it at some 300-450kg less than other 100/105mm weapons (and in spite of L24 barrel!).
Did it relatively long recoil as to lessen the stress on the carriage - thus allowing for lightness - at the cost of lower peak practical ROF?
Is the quoted combat weight for the horse traction version? How much weight did truck towing adaptation weight?
 
Last edited:

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling accountant
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Reaction score
12,751
Location
Slovenija
I wouldn't be surprised if the carriage was made out of lighter alloys, perhaps also somewhat thinner breech.

Is the quoted combat weight for the horse traction version?
Most likely, as Japanese artillery was designed for horse/human towing.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
3,087
Speaking of howitzers - I had a look at the WWII Japanese howitzer:
Looks neat - so, what did the Japanese sacrifice to make so light? I eyeball it at some 300-450kg less than other 100/105mm weapons (and in spite of L24 barrel!).
Did it very long recoil as to lessen the stress on the carriage - thus allowing for lightness - at the cost of slightly lower peak practical ROF (rarely used if ever)?
Is the quoted combat weight for the horse traction version? How much weight did truck towing adaptation weight?
The very article explains it:
Early models of the Type 91 had wooden spoked wheels, but later versions had steel wheels with pneumatic tires for towing behind a motorized transport at the cost of an extra 250 kilograms (550 lb).
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,524
Winged hussarls ceased to exist as fighting force in Poland becouse they practically stopped training and become parade unit.
But idea was still good,and Napoleon proved it with his coussiers.

So, i have question - why nobody other then Poland do not copy winged hussarls and used them as fighting unit before Napoleon ?
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
3,087
Winged hussarls ceased to exist as fighting force in Poland becouse they practically stopped training and become parade unit.
But idea was still good,and Napoleon proved it with his coussiers.

So, i have question - why nobody other then Poland do not copy winged hussarls and used them as fighting unit before Napoleon ?
Since 17th century and introduction of wheellocks, lance cavalry was on the decline, especially in technological pioneer countries, pistols increasingly competing for being a better shock attack weapon for cavalry (more reuseable, more maneuverable, and a cavalryman may well carry few), in addition to pike and shot tactics being a problem for lances and much less so for pistols.

Lances then had a bit of revival post-Napoleon with the decline of pikes and armor, but that in turn meant more light style lance cavalry as opposed to the medium armored Hussars.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Reaction score
3,861
Location
England
Here's my question.

How would a modern naval battle play out? Say, a carrier group against a carrier group of equal strength? Submarine, escorts, auxiliary supply ships, etc.

I have a distinct feeling it would be more like the battle of Midway than Trafalgar somehow.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,524
Here's my question.

How would a modern naval battle play out? Say, a carrier group against a carrier group of equal strength? Submarine, escorts, auxiliary supply ships, etc.

I have a distinct feeling it would be more like the battle of Midway than Trafalgar somehow.
I have better question - how many kamikaze in Mig19 you need to sink american carrier ? if all they do not fear and attack no matter how much of them die.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
3,087
I have better question - how many kamikaze in Mig19 you need to sink american carrier ? if all they do not fear and attack no matter how much of them die.
For all practical purposes, same guesses apply as to mediocre anti ship missiles, except ignore jamming/decoys. After all, some early anti ship missiles were pretty much that. This is clearly visible in some early models.

Yup, that's just effectively a pilotless light fighter jet of the era.
Mig-19 is a bit bigger and as such easier to detect and hit than a proper AShM, stat wise its not great, unless it dives its not supersonic at sea level, and if they do come at the target from high enough, then that gives the defenses a lot of extra time to engage due to radar horizon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
Top Bottom