|
zoux posted:How did countries go about developing the doctrine (and what would you call it?) used to fight WW2 between WW1 and 1939? From my layman's perspective, it seems the way that wars were fought changed vastly from WW1 to WW2, so how did things like small unit and armor tactics develop? Was there just a lot of terrible battle tactics at the beginning that get improved over the years or what? I guess basically my question is how do armies invent new tactics in peacetime, and how well does that work? There was a lot of fighting and exercises in between the wars. For example, the USSR fought with the Basmachi bandits, with Chinese warlords, with Japan, in Spain, Poland, and Finland. Each of these wars revealed deficiencies in theories that were developed during peacetime, and these deficiencies were corrected, and then the new theory would be tested in battle, and so on and so forth.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
Fangz posted:It also helps if you go on a little adventure holiday in Spain. Or Manchuria!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Ah! The website I was using as a reference lists the San Giorgio as a "Coastal Defense Ship." That's probably why I missed it. That's certainly a more accurate description of her status by the '40s. I checked the book I'm using to post ship loss updates in Grey Hunter's WitP LP. It has short blurbs about each loss and usually mentions when a ship had a previous owner or change of classification.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:There was a lot of fighting and exercises in between the wars. For example, the USSR fought with the Basmachi bandits, with Chinese warlords, with Japan, in Spain, Poland, and Finland. Each of these wars revealed deficiencies in theories that were developed during peacetime, and these deficiencies were corrected, and then the new theory would be tested in battle, and so on and so forth. Another example: the Germans learned a lot about using mechanised forces just from their entirely unopposed occupations of Austria and Czechoslovakia, things like how much a road net can bear, how much fuel a Panzer division needs to keep with it to operate, the need to have integrated maintenance etc etc. Also lots of intently watching everyone else - the Spanish Civil War is a classic example because the Nationalists used German tactics of armoured warfare which were unsuccessful and the Republicans used French/British tactics. The French and British concluded that they were on the right track, the Germans decided that the Spanish had just done it wrong and made notes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:That's certainly a more accurate description of her status by the '40s. I checked the book I'm using to post ship loss updates in Grey Hunter's WitP LP. It has short blurbs about each loss and usually mentions when a ship had a previous owner or change of classification. Which book you using? I've got a copy of Conway's All The Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946, really good book! quote:San Giorgio was reconstructed at R Arsenale, La Spezia (La Spezia Naval Yard) 1937-38 for service as a caost defence ship. Her boilers were reduced to 8 and converted to oil fuel only, with stowage for the latter of 1300t. Two of her funnels were removed and the remaining pair fitted with caps, the topmasts were reduced and some additional superstructure was fitted. The main and secondary armament remained unaltered but the other guns were replaced by 8 100mm/47 (4x2) and 14 13.2mm (7x2) AA. On completion of this refit standard displacement was 9470t and full load 11,500t. In 1940 she transferred to Tobruk to serve as AA guardship for which an additional 2 100mm/47 (1x2), mounted on the forecastle, and 12 20mm/65 (6x2) AA were fitted. She was scuttled at Tobruk. In the short version, its listed as "Scuttled, 22.1.41"
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Another example: the Germans learned a lot about using mechanised forces just from their entirely unopposed occupations of Austria and Czechoslovakia, things like how much a road net can bear, how much fuel a Panzer division needs to keep with it to operate, the need to have integrated maintenance etc etc. yeah i don't have the numbers, but they lost a surprisingly large number of tanks in those operations this guy was also there learning things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Wei-kuo 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Also lots of intently watching everyone else - the Spanish Civil War is a classic example because the Nationalists used German tactics of armoured warfare which were unsuccessful and the Republicans used French/British tactics. The French and British concluded that they were on the right track, the Germans decided that the Spanish had just done it wrong and made notes. It helped that the Republicans had good (Russian) tanks. And I'm not sure you could argue the Nationalists were unsuccessful in the long run - though most of their armour was, if I recall, actually Italian - not supplied by the Italians, mind you, but actual Italians as an expeditionary force. We all know how effective Italian armour ended up being in World War 2...
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:A little different from the normal content here, but InRange TV taste tested the original formula for Fanta as created by Germany when WW2 isolated the local Coca-Cola division. Since this is the milhist thread, how about a video about the Cola Wars? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3oKx9WkR5c
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:A little different from the normal content here, but InRange TV taste tested the original formula for Fanta as created by Germany when WW2 isolated the local Coca-Cola division. If the marketing says "inspired by the original" then it's not precisely the original formula (though presumably closer to it than the current ones). Even the bottle design isn't the original war time one, nor would there be a market for that kind of nostalgia other than milhist enthusiast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:If the marketing says "inspired by the original" then it's not precisely the original formula (though presumably closer to it than the current ones). Even the bottle design isn't the original war time one, nor would there be a market for that kind of nostalgia other than milhist enthusiast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:the east germans at least love nostalgic food, market it to them I have a feeling that Coca Cola company didn't operate in DDR so most ossis wouldn't feel that ostalgic about it (though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a facsimile product)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I have a feeling that Coca Cola company didn't operate in DDR so most ossis wouldn't feel that ostalgic about it (though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a facsimile product) i don't know how it tastes because i keep my refined sugar intake to a minimum but trin had some when he visited me edit: and we're all ostalgic down here
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
We may have been talking about big scale models in the scale model thread, and somebody posted this 1/35 Dora:
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:ossis drink vita-cola you know that fanta is a different product, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:you know that fanta is a different product, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
just making sure, you can never trust non-soda enthusiasts unrelated but my dad is ossi no, not my dad who is serb, my dad who is finn well actually he's related
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:It helped that the Republicans had good (Russian) tanks. And I'm not sure you could argue the Nationalists were unsuccessful in the long run - though most of their armour was, if I recall, actually Italian - not supplied by the Italians, mind you, but actual Italians as an expeditionary force. We all know how effective Italian armour ended up being in World War 2... How reliable T-26s were in comparison to Pz Is and IIs and the Italian tanks? Now that I think of it, I don't know poo poo about Italian tanks, could someone post about them? e: Huh, I thought that Pz IIs were used already in the Spanish Civil War Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jan 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How reliable T-26s were in comparison to Pz Is and IIs and the Italian tanks? I have a list of T-26es that went in for repairs, one ran for 200 hours since last repairs and over 400 in total, one ran for 350ish, one ran for 86. Also there were some complaints about T-26es throwing tracks. That's all I have RE: reliability. For the PzI, Soviet trials also showed it to lose its tracks a lot, but it didn't show any engine trouble while it ran. On the other hand, the brake drums overheated even in winter. I don't have anything direct about German experience with them aside from a general statement of having to ditch broken tanks during long marches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
How much stress did the T-26 put on its suspension? Isn't it a bit heavier than the original Vickers Mk E
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:ossis drink vita-cola Vita-cola is legit, but a lot of ossis also dig Spezi, which is the flagship of east German sodas, it's kind of a fanta cola mix.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:How much stress did the T-26 put on its suspension? Isn't it a bit heavier than the original Vickers Mk E About 10 tons at its fattest point, compared to 7 tons of the Vickers "6-ton". The suspension was reinforced though, but that was basically as far as you could go with the platform.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:We may have been talking about big scale models in the scale model thread, and somebody posted this 1/35 Dora: Looks chunky enough that it could load an actual handgun cartridge. Do a hand load with a super high-weight-bullet/low propellant load, market it as a functioning replica.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:About 10 tons at its fattest point, compared to 7 tons of the Vickers "6-ton". The suspension was reinforced though, but that was basically as far as you could go with the platform. Overloading the suspension tends to be one of those major causes for reliability issues. And underpowered engines getting stressed out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:1/35 Dora: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Which book you using? I've got a copy of Conway's All The Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946, really good book! Warship Losses of World War Two, David Brown (NB: not, as far as I can tell, the naval architect David Brown who was DCNA RCNC) 1990. The entry for San Giorgio's sinking is: quote:Italian Coast Defence Ship (ex-Armoured Cruiser) There's also an appendix with some particulars, San Giorgio as follows: pre:Coast defence ship San Giorgio one unit built 1905-10 in service in 1940 Displacement 9,232 tons Length 462ft (141m) Beam 69ft (21m) Guns 4 × 10in (254mm) 8 × 7.5in (190mm) 10 × 3.9in AA 6 × 37mm AA 12 × 20mm AA Machinery 18,000ihp = 22kts
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How reliable T-26s were in comparison to Pz Is and IIs and the Italian tanks? The main advantage of the T-26, afaik, was that its gun was much more suited for AFV combat. As for Italian tanks, the short short version is that they were all terrible and only had decent vehicles in the form of tank destroyers. And even those were limited in number thanks to Italy's low production capabilities. To expand upon THAT a little bit, Italy had gotten it in their head that tanks were good, but small and light tanks were best. They built a ton of tankettes, all of which were obsolete by the time the Spanish Civil War was underway. To say they underperformed during WW2 is an understatement, and the Italians lost massive numbers to enemy action, or after being overrun in the early stages of the North African campaign. These tankettes had very little in terms of offensive capability. They were generally armed with machine guns. The L3/33 and /35 only had a single 6.5mm Machine Gun. Did I mention that Italian MGs were loving garbage? They were similar in design to Japanese machine guns (Technically the Japanese got their ideas off of Italy) and had goofy poo poo like an oiler that would oil a round as or immediately before it entered the chamber. It didn't work well, and it was even worse in an environment composed entirely of SAND to jam up the gun! Italy's machine guns are a mixed bag, all told, with some being okay/good and others being garbage. But back to tanks! After the tankettes, you have the Light Tanks L5 and L6. The L5s were originally built in the 20's, but was only a small production run. The L6s didn't have a much larger production run (Less than 300 total) and featured a design reminiscent of a T-26 and, similarly, was of riveted design. Unlike the T-26, however, it had a 20mm autocannon much like the early German Panzers. Then you have the Medium Tanks M11, M13, M14, and M15. None ever had a gun larger than 47mm in caliber. They were also of riveted construction. The M11 was terrible, having its main armament in the hull of the tank, with an MG in a turret. The armor on it was only designed to withstand 20mm caliber fire, which meant it was vulnerable to just about everything the Allies had in North Africa, aside from some small arms fire. The M11 was also only marginally faster than a Matilda II (20mph on roads vs 16mph on roads) and still had an operational range that was shorter than the Matilda II.  Next came the M13, which was the most numerous "modern" tank the Italians had throughout the war. This time around they solved the whole "main armament in the hull" problem and they had a proper tank. The 47mm gun could penetrate the Allied tanks it would face... sometimes. It depended on distance and facing. In essence, the M13 was just a slightly bigger, better M11. The M14, like the M13, built upon its predecessor. The main thing I recall about the M14 was that it had a better engine, at the expense of a smaller fighting compartment. It was more cramped and carried less ammunition than the previous tank, kept the same armament, and was basically useless by the time it entered service. Surprise surprise, the M15 was another piece of garbage tank! It didn't see service until late 1942 - early 1943, and had a gun that was only slightly longer than the previous version. Still riveted, still the same basic layout as the M11, and very little going for it. It was also obsolete by the time it entered service. The only other noteworthy tank is the P26 "Heavy" tank, clocking in at a massive 26 tonnes! Riveted construction, it weighed 1 tonne more than a Panzer IV Ausf.H. If looked at on a spreadsheet, it seems comparable to a Panzer IV, but barely any were made. I don't know how well they did in combat. Then, you have the Italian tank destroyers. The Semovente L40 was built on the chassis of the L6 tank, and featured a 47/32mm gun. The same gun seen on the M11 onwards. By the time it appeared on the frontlines in late 1941 - early 1942(!) it was obsolete. Noticing a pattern? Next, the Semovente 75/18. The gun was more of a howitzer, due to its short size, but it did have HEAT rounds. The short size of the gun also meant that it had a low muzzle velocity. It came into service around the same time as the Semovente L40(!). The upgunned version, the Semovente 75/34 was more of an actual tank destroyer, having actual AP ammo that wasn't solely HEAT. They wouldn't see service until 1943. Another tank destroyer using a modified M-tank chassis was the Semovente 90/53. This was actually their infamous 90mm flak gun, which by all accounts had good performance akin to the German 88mm. The downside to the Semovente was that its installation and design left the crew completely exposed to... everything. It is very similar in basic design as the Marder tanks, or other open fighting compartment TDs. It was good, but only rarely seen in combat. The penultimate Italian tank (destroyer) I'll mention is the Semovente 105/25 which resembled a StuG. The Germans allegedly had good opinions of this vehicle and it performed well thanks to its low profile and large gun. And finally, there's the Semovente 75/46 which looked very similar to the Semovente 105/25. Only a very limited number were ever produced, but the gun was capable of penetrating 90mm of armor with AP rounds at a distance of 500 meters. This performance was similar to German long-caliber 75mm guns. So the Italian tank forces were essentially short on good tanks, all of which came too late to affect the outcome of the war. Anything the Italians had in large numbers were horribly ineffective, to the point of being obsolete upon entering service. Their guns were generally lackluster and failed to see the same widespread improvements as seen with other nations. The armor on their vehicles was almost always riveted(-only) in construction and was inadequate against most anything they were to face in combat. There's 3 words to accurately describe Italy's tanks and tank forces during World War 2. Dead on Arrival
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Tias posted:Vita-cola is legit, but a lot of ossis also dig Spezi, which is the flagship of east German sodas, it's kind of a fanta cola mix. Spezi is legit as gently caress. If I'm at a place with a fountain that actually has fanta I always whip some up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:Warship Losses of World War Two, David Brown (NB: not, as far as I can tell, the naval architect David Brown who was DCNA RCNC) 1990. The entry for San Giorgio's sinking is: Extremely my jam, going to look it up!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Looks chunky enough that it could load an actual handgun cartridge. Do a hand load with a super high-weight-bullet/low propellant load, market it as a functioning replica. Argh, the page from some pre-WWII article on a miniature (.22 caliber?) artillery piece for training purposes isn't coming up quickly in Google. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Holy schmuck I just got https://www.amazon.com/Lloyds-Losses-World-September-August/dp/1850444129 For less than $100 CAD. Is this what winning the milhist lottery is like? Can't wait to be utterly disappointed by it in 3 weeks! Edit: Its probably only volume 1 of 2 because lol of course it is! Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Jan 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:These tankettes had very little in terms of offensive capability. They were generally armed with machine guns. The L3/33 and /35 only had a single 6.5mm Machine Gun. Did I mention that Italian MGs were loving garbage? They were similar in design to Japanese machine guns (Technically the Japanese got their ideas off of Italy) and had goofy poo poo like an oiler that would oil a round as or immediately before it entered the chamber. It didn't work well, and it was even worse in an environment composed entirely of SAND to jam up the gun! I have very strong opinions on Italian machine guns of the first half of the 20th century because they somehow got crazier with every new design. First is the Fiat-Revelli Modello 1914:  Looks like a convention water-cooled gun from WW1, right? Nah, the Italians decided that they were above such silly things as "belt feeds". They instead used a large box with 10 slots, each of which held a 5-round stripper clip. The gun would feed the rounds from the clip in line with the breech one at a time, then when it was empty the whole block would move to the right and drop the empty clip. I'm not sure why they thought this would be a great idea, since you needed to reload 10 individual compartments instead of just swapping a belt. It was also obviously prone to malfunctions (especially since the sheet metal making up the magazine body was easy to bend and the open cage design made it easy to get mud inside). Even worse, the Italians used 6-round magazines that used a totally different clip so you couldn't even justify it with logistics! The reciprocating bolt also protruded from the rear between the operator's grips, so be careful not to get whacked in the nose trying to peer through the sight. The Modello 1935 was a redesign for WW2 without the water cooling jacket and rechambered for the new 8mm cartridge. It also used a more conventional belt feed. Unfortunately, it still kept jamming. Next was the Breda Modello 1930:  Here the designer thought "You know what? It's really easy for soldiers to lose those expensive magazines we give them. Attach it to the gun so they can't lose it." The magazine isn't permanently attached, but crews were typically only issued one and it needs to be slid off a mounting bracket so it's not really fast to change anyway. Instead, soldiers were supposed to unlatch the magazine and hinge it forward so they could use a giant U-shaped charger to load the magazine in two motions. This was much slower than swapping magazines and ensured that if you lost or damaged your single magazine, the gun was now useless. Also an awful design decision: making the gun closed bolt blowback. Most machine guns are open bolt to allow the weapon to stay open and let cool air flow in between bursts, as well as ensuring that there's no round in a hot chamber to cook off. Pretty much any rifle-sized weapon chambered for something bigger than pistol rounds also uses a locked breech, as you can't let the breech open too fast during firing and trying to just use a heavy recoil spring and bolt to keep it from opening too fast rapidly becomes implausible for an operator to cock when you're dealing with rifle rounds. The designers of the Breda decided "To hell with basic gun design!" and used a blowback system that was still light enough for the operator to cock by hand. This resulted in incredibly violent extraction and ejection of empty casings that often tore them to shreds and jammed the gun up. They tried to mitigate this with a built-in oiler to lubricate the rounds, but that just attracted dust and grit. They were fighting in a desert. Good luck! The last major machine gun was the Breda Modello 1937:  Okay, we have to get this one right. Dispense with the oiler so it stops attracting dust. Beef it up to 8mm so we get more power and range. And for the feed system we'll just use a belt like every-- hahahaha no. The feed system was a stiff strip like the old Hotchkiss guns from WW1, but with the mechanism modified to reinsert the empty casings into the strip. There's no rhyme or reason as to why you would do this, especially since the gun would jam if the reinsertion went wrong and you'd need to pry out the empty casings before you could reload the strips. They also got rid of the oiler without bothering to make it a locked breech, so soldiers started individually oiling the strips before loading them anyway. But hey, the Italians wanted to use this gun in tanks too! It doesn't eject casings so it'll actually be pretty clean for the interior and won't bounce hot metal all over the gunner. Do you think we should make any modifications beforehand, though?  Yeah they replaced the strip feeding with a box magazine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:*lovely Italian Machine Guns* And the Lord said "BUILD ME A BREDA-SAFAT" And the people of Italy did so and the Lord looked upon their creation and it was good. And then the Lord said "LOL, NOBODY BUT THE AIR FORCE SHALL USE IT!" And the people of Italy wept. Edit: And there was much rejoicing amongst the Allies. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:It helped that the Republicans had good (Russian) tanks. And I'm not sure you could argue the Nationalists were unsuccessful in the long run - though most of their armour was, if I recall, actually Italian - not supplied by the Italians, mind you, but actual Italians as an expeditionary force. We all know how effective Italian armour ended up being in World War 2... Italian interwar tanks were perfectly comparable to those of everyone else, they just couldn't keep pace. My point was that while the Nationalists won in the end, they won fighting the kind of slow positional warfare that the French and British establishments were expecting a modern war to be (there were young officers in both armies who were arguing vigorously for a more mobile outlook, but they didn't get the break that Guderian did to shape a force with a free hand). What the Western Allies saw as evidence that tanks were best use to support the war-winning infantry, Guderian saw as evidence of a need for much closer combined arms support of the armoured force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Did they make it so the box mag arrangement for the MG reinserted spent casings into the rear end-end of the mag? I mean it'd be needlessly complex and useless but :axis-procurement: should just render as a flaming dumpster made of shattered final drive gears glued together with misallocated petroleum distillates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Did they make it so the box mag arrangement for the MG reinserted spent casings into the rear end-end of the mag? It used a strip like the old Hotchkiss or Benet-Mercie guns. It would remove a cartridge to load into the chamber, but then it would reinsert the spent casing into the strip instead of ejecting it
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It used a strip like the old Hotchkiss or Benet-Mercie guns. It would remove a cartridge to load into the chamber, but then it would reinsert the spent casing into the strip instead of ejecting it No, I meant the box mag-fed one, mainly as a comedy option because it would absolutely be something out of an axis arms design bureau.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Did they make it so the box mag arrangement for the MG reinserted spent casings into the rear end-end of the mag? Italy and Japan saw stripper clips and were like "poo poo yeah look at this loving future tech right here, we need to make everything that a man can shoot the enemy with use these SOBs!" And that's how you get stupid poo poo like the Type 11 LMG.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Italy and Japan saw stripper clips and were like "poo poo yeah look at this loving future tech right here, we need to make everything that a man can shoot the enemy with use these SOBs!" IIRC there's a forgotten weapons ep on this, uh, weapon and the screwy feed mechanism is as screwy in action as it looks on paper. I'll see if I can find it real quick so watch this space. E: https://youtu.be/JH9VQGht8CU Ian doesn't fire it, just takes it apart while taking it apart. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Did they make it so the box mag arrangement for the MG reinserted spent casings into the rear end-end of the mag? The closest thing to this in Soviet procurement was when the GAU told weapons designers to make a belt-fed machinegun that doesn't pull rimmed cartridges out of the belt backwards and the designers told the GAU to go gently caress itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
hopper fed MGs make some sense if your doctrine considers them "automatic rifles" rather than a base of fire and suppression weapon. Think less MG42, more BAR. It lets you keep 100% ammunition commonality with your riflemen, up to and including the stripper clips that they get all their ammo on, and the sustained ROF isn't that much less than a box mag if you have someone topping it off routinely. It didn't turn out to be the RIGHT design choice, but it's one that makes sense from an early 20s perspective if you're still thinking in terms of HMGs as semi-fixed emplacements and the BAR/Chauchaut style "automatic rifle" as something portable for the soldiers moving up against the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 03:13
|
|