Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
"We need you over in Hell, fighting with the insurgency." *BLAM BLAM BLAM*KlavoHunter wrote:So, now that we've brought up the subject of Insurgency leaders popping up and making nice with the US and other Allied forces in the War on Damnation...
... what's the status of Osama? Is he going to pop up and say "Hi, guys!"?
And when he does, will we kill him anyways?
Alright, then. I hereby submit for formalized standards, the M1E15 Garand: 24 inch barrel, fixed stock, 14-round detachable magazine, chambered for .458 winchester magnum. We have the gun, we have the round, we can make it a magazine rifle with casual ease, the round is the same overall length is the .30-06, bringing the modifications down to an absolute minimum, and the magazine gives us the maximum possible capacity without screwing up the ergonomics, and though not being an existing size, magazines can be built with brutal simplicity. The standard service round will of course be 500 grain hollow point, which is already available from Hornady, the loading providing a velocity of 2,260fps for the bullet.Stuart wrote:
That's a pretty neat summary of the situation. With our present Army, we've got the new M16A6/M4A5 as standard rifles. We are likely to have the new Garands as longer-range rifles - probably one or two per squad to give a 100 meters plus hitting capability that we gave up going to the .50 beowulf.
However, that Army won't be around forever. It's likely that in the longer term, the existing US formations will become fire brigade units used where firepower and agility are needed while a new mass Army will be formed (essentially for home defense etc etc etc). Any M16 derivative is bad news there since its a tricky weapon that needs skilled and loving care. Remember, its going to people who have never touched a gun before. A Garand doesn't need such refined care so I'm going with the improved Garand suggested for that role.
Two bits of evidence for that approach. One is the way the Russian Army reverted from the SVT semi-auto rifle to the Mozzy-Nag when WW2 broke out. The other is the conversion of many Siamese Mausers to chamber 45-70 ammunition because the action was strong enough to take it.
When discussing things like this, remember the Iron Law of Mobilization. You go with what you've got. It doesn't matter if weapon B is just a little bit better than weapon A; if Weapon A is in production and B isn't, you go with A.
The Garand is still in production - so that's OK. The round is in production, that's OK. So its viable.
By the way, on the magazine issue, the Garand was originally designed with a detachable magazine and the Army insisted it be changed to a clip-loading system - which was done very quickly. So, making the change to a detachable magazine should be no big deal.
Though there is fair a amount of 'done just for the awesome' in this fic, none of it completely discards plausibility and the overall tone still seems to be aiming for realism. The only possible justification for using refurbished antiques in the first strike instead of the vastly superior and already operational contemporary bombers would be some aspect of hell that messes up jet engines but not piston engines. Frankly the reverse seems much more likely to be true, particularly for anything approaching a conventional air filter.KlavoHunter wrote:If you're actually serious about Enola Gay and Bockscar being brought out of retirement, they should be the first ones to drop nuclear weapons on Dis.
THUMP, APPROVED.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Alright, then. I hereby submit for formalized standards, the M1E15 Garand: 24 inch barrel, fixed stock, 14-round detachable magazine, chambered for .458 winchester magnum. We have the gun, we have the round, we can make it a magazine rifle with casual ease, the round is the same overall length is the .30-06, bringing the modifications down to an absolute minimum, and the magazine gives us the maximum possible capacity without screwing up the ergonomics, and though not being an existing size, magazines can be built with brutal simplicity. The standard service round will of course be 500 grain hollow point, which is already available from Hornady, the loading providing a velocity of 2,260fps for the bullet.
True, at the moment viable but obsolete airframes are best used for testing so that more valuable aircraft can be saved for front-line use.Starglider wrote: Though there is fair a amount of 'done just for the awesome' in this fic, none of it completely discards plausibility and the overall tone still seems to be aiming for realism. The only possible justification for using refurbished antiques in the first strike instead of the vastly superior and already operational contemporary bombers would be some aspect of hell that messes up jet engines but not piston engines. Frankly the reverse seems much more likely to be true, particularly for anything approaching a conventional air filter. The stated use for these airframes makes much more sense - testing to destruction to find out what happens if you try to operate aircraft in a hell-like environment. You want to use the least valuable, lowest readiness airframes you can for this.
HANOI!Stuart wrote:For a bonus, which was the last city to be the subject of a planned attatck by B-29 variants?
*pedantic mode*Stuart wrote:THUMP, APPROVED.
Call Springfield Armory, place the order.........
A Swedish 40 mm might be better - They're still in production for the CV9040 while the German weapons hasn't been made since 1945.Typhonis 1 wrote:
For a simple AFV. Why not take a stretcch M113 and mate it with a german 37mmm AA gun?
\MKSheppard wrote:*pedantic mode*Stuart wrote:THUMP, APPROVED.
Call Springfield Armory, place the order.........
Since this is actually going into mass production and is going to be issued as service equipment; I, as head of standardization, standardize it as the Rifle, .50 Caliber, Garand M1A1.
Rifle, .478 Caliber, Garand M1E15. Maybe M1T38. I'd avoid the M1A1 designation, as it's shared with the abrams tanks.MKSheppard wrote:*pedantic mode*Stuart wrote:THUMP, APPROVED.
Call Springfield Armory, place the order.........
Since this is actually going into mass production and is going to be issued as service equipment; I, as head of standardization, standardize it as the Rifle, .50 Caliber, Garand M1A1.
Does nobody here understand US Designations?Firethorn wrote:Rifle, .478 Caliber, Garand M1E15. Maybe M1T38. I'd avoid the M1A1 designation, as it's shared with the abrams tanks.
Quite right. For a bonus, the year and the version of the B-29 was?MKSheppard wrote:HANOI!Stuart wrote:For a bonus, which was the last city to be the subject of a planned attatck by B-29 variants?
Tu-4, and 1979?Stuart wrote:Quite right. For a bonus, the year and the version of the B-29 was?
Ease of production. .458 winchester magnum is exactly the same overall length as .30-06. So we don't have to make massive modifications to the design of the receiver on the Garand. The initial production order for these rifles is going to be to the tune of 25 million, you realize?MKSheppard wrote:Does nobody here understand US Designations?Firethorn wrote:Rifle, .478 Caliber, Garand M1E15. Maybe M1T38. I'd avoid the M1A1 designation, as it's shared with the abrams tanks.
E is used for experimental, test equipment. For example, the M1E1 Abrams, when it was approved for mass production and service use, was standardized as the M1A1.
And sharing the M1A1 designation is no problem; we had tons of "M1s" in service in WW2 at the same time.
Besides, GDLS just got a contract to convert all remaining M1A1s into A2 SEP v2s.
Yes; I made a boo boo with the designation so it'd be;
"Rifle, .458 Caliber, Garand, M1A1"
Wait.....why are we accepting a completely different caliber for our new Garands, raising the spectre of one rifle caliber for the "fire brigades", and another caliber for the mass army?
As Stuart has said, the .50 Beowulf is already in production for the USCG, meanwhile, Marina's proposed .458 Win Mag isn't in the DoD system.
Also; .50 Beowulf will be good enough for infantry engagements. If you need to kill a Baldrick at a mile; don't shoot at him with a rifle, have your M113's .50 caliber AAMG deal with him.
I am reminded of the fate of the BEF of 1914, and its successors. Its an enormous new army that needs to be trained, for the US and everyone else, getting it to an acceptable standard will be a long task.Stuart wrote:
However, that Army won't be around forever. It's likely that in the longer term, the existing US formations will become fire brigade units used where firepower and agility are needed while a new mass Army will be formed (essentially for home defense etc etc etc).
Pfft. Will all those 37mm and 57mm Anti Tank Guns serving as Gate Guards at VFW and American Legion posts get refurbished and given to milita units? I mean if we're bringing back B-29s....MariusRoi wrote:The B-29/50 and B-36 recovery makes me wonder if we will see a last ride of a certain aircraft with a tail number of 20001, for that would bring a tear to my eye.
And guess what? The guy in charge of logistics, I.e. Supplying these 25 million rifles with ammo to shoot is going to go and sayThe Duchess of Zeon wrote:The initial production order for these rifles is going to be to the tune of 25 million, you realize?
You think small, everyone knows priority should go towards cutting down every possible 16in gun barrel to 20cal for use firing canister. Heck an M1 tank hull might even be able to move such a thing, if it was mounted backwards.MKSheppard wrote:
Pfft. Will all those 37mm and 57mm Anti Tank Guns serving as Gate Guards at VFW and American Legion posts get refurbished and given to milita units? I mean if we're bringing back B-29s....