marathag
Banned
After All, General Sedgewick was dead sure that snipers couldn't hit an Elephant at the distance his position was behind the line
After All, General Sedgewick was dead sure that snipers couldn't hit an Elephant at the distance his position was behind the line
Honestly, that's the first time I've heard the shooting uphill point, but it sounds valid. The US certainly considered the Philippine experiences in weapons considerations. But, wouldn't the 7 x 57mm "Spanish" Mauser round achieve nearly the same performance, or am I overrating that cartridge? That cartridge certainly raised hell with US forces in Cuba. It's a bit smaller/lighter and from what I understand, shoots a bit flatter, with less felt recoil.
6mm Lee Navy | 30-40 Krag | 7x57 Mauser | ||
Case type | Semi-rimmed, bottleneck | rimmed, bottleneck | Rimless, bottleneck | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bullet diameter | 0.244 (0.236 dia. before rifling) | .308 in (7.8 mm) | 7.25 mm (0.285 in) | |
Neck diameter | .278 in (7.1 mm) | .338 in (8.6 mm) | 8.25 mm (0.325 in) | |
Shoulder diameter | .402 in (10.2 mm) | .423 in (10.7 mm) |
| |
Base diameter | .445 in (11.3 mm) | .457 in (11.6 mm) | 12.01 mm (0.473 in) | |
Rim diameter | .448 in (11.4 mm) | .545 in (13.8 mm) | 12.10 mm (0.476 in) | |
Case length | 2.35 in (60 mm) |
| 57.00 mm (2.244 in) | |
Overall length | 3.11 in (79 mm) | 3.089 in (78.5 mm) | 78.00 mm (3.071 in) | |
Rifling twist | 1:7½ | 220 mm (1 in 8.66 in | ||
Primer type | Boxer large rifle | Large Rifle | Large rifle | |
Performance | 112gr bullet 2650fps 2569J | 220gr bullet 2000fps 2649J | 173gr bullet 2297fps 2746J |
1. https://airandspace.si.edu/collecti...smokeless-powder-rh-goddard/nasm_A19850179000Goddard had four rocket designs in 1918, demonstrated a few days before the Armistice.
The largest was an indirect fire weapon with a range of over a kilometre (some sources claim ~1,800m), weighed about 50lbs and carried an 8lb payload.
The intermediate was a 3" tube launched, direct or indirect fire, weapon weighing about eight pounds while the lightest (~5lbs) was a 2" version. Both were fired from tubes mounted on a device made from two music stands. All three devices used the De Laval nozzle. He had earlier trialed, and probably demonstrated, a long 1" diameter rocket.
Goddard had developed the potential weapons in about a year but had a factious relationship with the Army Signal Corps.
Unfortunately there is little data on the accuracy or payload of the lighter rockets or the weight of the launch apparatus (not that much I'd estimate as it was a 5.5' sheet steel tube).
Stray bullets do travel. Aimed fire did not kill Sedgewick. It was harassment fire. Those Confederate rat bastards involved (about a platoon of indifferent snipers) had been peppering the Union position with shots to keep Union troops from using the road to bring up food and ammunition. It is like saying Joe Hooker was going to be hit by an individually aimed cannon ball when Porter Alexander's artillery was pummeling the whole farm around Hooker's HQ with cannon balls and one just happened by chance to hit the pillar that Fighting Joe was standing next, too. Sheesh. CONTEXT.After All, General Sedgewick was dead sure that snipers couldn't hit an Elephant at the distance his position was behind the line
Meh, you improvise where you can, and 'borrow' stuff to save money. The main component of my third-year university physics project was a rather elaborate, three-way, Liebig condenser I 'borrowed' from the chemistry department museum and turned into a gas laser.The whole "Made from two music stands" bit is pretty funny.
"Well I'm developing a new weapon system. Off to the Guitar shop then."
That's the bugger, though that tube isn't 8'5" but 5'5'. Annoyingly while there are references to direct fire there is no data in any source I've ever found regarding direct fire range or accuracy. Given the burn characteristics of grained black powder there would be issues with consistent straight-line flight1. https://airandspace.si.edu/collecti...smokeless-powder-rh-goddard/nasm_A19850179000
2. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/nozzle-rocket-solid-fuel-rh-goddard/nasm_A19850180000
The rocket photo from the reddit citation IS the 8ft 5 inch long tube launched 3 inch projectile. The tube bipod is on two music stands and what looks to be a 3x4 timber lashed down with rope. As can be seen from the above citations the functional intent was to replace the 37 mm French trench gun with a more portable mortar like weapon. The weapon Goddard demonstrated was
Robert Goddard Rocket Stock Photos & Robert Goddard Rocket ...
the 3 inch. This was reported to have an effective range of 850 yards during the test. The weapon seen does not have the screw threading of the 1 inch projectile in the hands of the air and space museum.
The 1895 Mauser in 7x57mm proved itself in the Boer War, starting Britain on the road to it's own Mauser style bolt-action rifle and 7mm 'hot' round to replace the Lee system and the .303 round.Honestly, that's the first time I've heard the shooting uphill point, but it sounds valid. The US certainly considered the Philippine experiences in weapons considerations. But, wouldn't the 7 x 57mm "Spanish" Mauser round achieve nearly the same performance, or am I overrating that cartridge? That cartridge certainly raised hell with US forces in Cuba. It's a bit smaller/lighter and from what I understand, shoots a bit flatter, with less felt recoil.
And please fix the magazine.The Chauchat but leave it in 8mm Lebel.
Yes it takes 3 years to train a continental army from a small peace time army (UK, USA) - let alone introduce such practices as more independent sub units.As I understand it, the primary reason is that the ‘modern system’ is terribly expensive to implement and very challenging to use. You have to not only train every NCO to command the type of small-unit tactics that you’d previously only train company commanders in, train the company commanders to manage semi-autonomous minor units rather than blocks of obedient proles, but also train everyone to deal with a battlefield where every unit is by intention virtually invisible and moving unpredictably, etc. etc. It’s very difficult and even today lots of armies haven’t managed it.
Of course, when obliteration by modern firepower becomes an issue its extremely attractive but then runs into practical problems, namely that multi-million man armies need vast numbers of NCOs and officers to receive this complex small-unit training at the exact same time when millions of recruits urgently need to be trained how to hold a rifle and tens of thousands of officer trainees are struggling to hurriedly learn map reading and whistle blowing.
OTL that put everyone into a situation of having huge rapidly expanded armies that were tactically clumsy for a while, in both world wars.
while that might be a novel way to use up some krags, i'm thinking that Pedersen can get a clean sheet design ready in time.The Pedersen device was a fascinating attempt to 'square the circle'. Perhaps with a more powerful cartridge and dedicated carbines? Take a bunch of rifles, shorten them and permanently convert them to fire a short .30 round?
i'd prefer the Belgian model tbh.The Chauchat but leave it in 8mm Lebel.
That's an idea, assuming the US has the rifles to spare. If the .30-06 Enfield was in production then it could also be used as the basis for a 'Pedersen carbine' with a shorter barrel and permanent semi-auto/selective mechanism. However the cartridge really needs to be improved.while that might be a novel way to use up some krags, i'm thinking that Pedersen can get a clean sheet design ready in time.
just tell him you like the idea of the carbine but can't spare the rifles att
Are you referring to a Mark II Pedersen device or distinct semi-auto rifle?That's an idea, assuming the US has the rifles to spare. If the .30-06 Enfield was in production then it could also be used as the basis for a 'Pedersen carbine' with a shorter barrel and permanent semi-auto/selective mechanism. However the cartridge really needs to be improved.
i think that i want a clean sheet purpose built carbine while @Catsmate wants to permanently convert surplus rifles into carbinesAre you referring to a Mark II Pedersen device or distinct semi-auto rifle?
maybe, however there comes a point where improving the cartridge becomes developing a new cartridge.However the cartridge really needs to be improved.
Modern trials with the Chauchat point to the issue with the magazine not being the design (given that it had to use the 8mm Lebel round) but with the quality and gauge of the metal used in them. Over a quarter of a million of the guns were made so the numbers of magazines needed was in the many millions so that might have been inevitable to get them in those numbers. Use of the magazine has explained good reasons for all the aspects of it’s design. The Belgian ones, for their 7,65x53 Mauser rounds, were a better design, but then for a more suitable cartridge than a 8mm necked down rimmed 1874 11x59mm black powder single shot rifle. The fix would be the French modernising their standard small arms round well before the outbreak of war.And please fix the magazine.
Just close off the sides. That’s easy enough.And please fix the magazine.
Using USG issued 30.06 in an Americanized Chauchat, sealing the windows is not enough. The ammo feed jammed at the upper lip feed of the receiver. French or Belgian ammo? No problem. But the curved mags for the Americanized Chauchat were a disaster closed or open.Just close off the sides. That’s easy enough.
Because the conversion to 30.06 was a disaster.Using USG issued 30.06 in an Americanized Chauchat, sealing the windows is not enough. The ammo feed jammed at the upper lip feed of the receiver. French or Belgian ammo? No problem. But the curved mags for the Americanized Chauchat were a disaster closed or open.
If you're diverging before the war the the French could have licensed the Lewis.Modern trials with the Chauchat point to the issue with the magazine not being the design (given that it had to use the 8mm Lebel round) but with the quality and gauge of the metal used in them. Over a quarter of a million of the guns were made so the numbers of magazines needed was in the many millions so that might have been inevitable to get them in those numbers. Use of the magazine has explained good reasons for all the aspects of it’s design. The Belgian ones, for their 7,65x53 Mauser rounds, were a better design, but then for a more suitable cartridge than a 8mm necked down rimmed 1874 11x59mm black powder single shot rifle. The fix would be the French modernising their standard small arms round well before the outbreak of war.
I'd prefer new weapons. But realistically a conversion of surplus weapons is easier to sell.i think that i want a clean sheet purpose built carbine while @Catsmate wants to permanently convert surplus rifles into carbines
maybe, however there comes a point where improving the cartridge becomes developing a new cartridge.
how far do you want to go?
The Pedersen was tested (IIRR) with the Enfield so if they were 'surplus' they might be available, though given the US use of the Enfield and the shortage of Springfield rifles they'd probably be needed as first line weapons.Are you referring to a Mark II Pedersen device or distinct semi-auto rifle?
No.As for cartridges, was anyone in the US making the .30 Mauser pistol round? A hotter load perhaps would make a better round and still work with the .30-06/.30-03 barrel
fair enoughI'd prefer new weapons. But realistically a conversion of surplus weapons is easier to sell.
actually, yes,As for cartridges, was anyone in the US making the .30 Mauser pistol round?
apparently there was a prototype for the Mosin–Nagant, likely the idea was to convert the leftover rifles New England Westinghouse and Remington weren't able to shipThe Pedersen was tested (IIRR) with the Enfield so if they were 'surplus' they might be available, though given the US use of the Enfield and the shortage of Springfield rifles they'd probably be needed as first line weapons.