Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aseaheru]

Nor is 12x100, its just designed the same way as atleast two three military rounds 
And if yer going "its outdated", why are you also against the idea of a 14.5x114mm sorta round, besides the "thats more of a light cannon than a HMG" thing

[Madman198237]

I'm against it BECAUSE it's a light cannon round trying too hard to be a machinegun round. The rounds are too heavy, the weapons are too heavy, and the use case is not as general as that of a .40 caliber or .50 caliber weapon, because you can never have quite as many rounds for that large of a round, or as many of that large of a gun, as you can with the lighter weaponry.

You can't just "besides for" an apt summation of the objections to this proposal.

[Aseaheru]

 Its also a round still usable for anti-tank work through the majority of WW2 and still useable as aircraft armament and killing moderately armored vehicles(i.e., ones with less than the equivalent of 40mm of RHA steel at 100m, ~32mm at 500m). And thats just the OG ammunition.

[Madman198237]

It was useful as an AT round early in WWII, and after that it was useful for trying mobility kills on German tanks, sure, but it wasn't really capable of reliably defeating mid-to-late war armor.

It's certainly usable for all of those things, but it's less useful than a lighter bullet at killing infantry or using as a long-ranged machinegun for area suppression, because of the limited ammo. And the .40 or .50 options are still usable for those roles, and fill roles available NOW better than a 14.5 type bullet. They fill roles that will be available (antitank rifle/light automatic cannon for certain vehicle mountings, WWII-era aircraft light cannon) not quite as well as 14.5, but those are roles that don't yet exist and if we do end up filling them (NOT guaranteed, we seem to be focused on infantry weapons and are not, for instance, supplying armored cars with things, at least not yet) we can develop another round then.

[Aseaheru]

 So, Panther 2 is early war tanks? The reason why the Germans stuck Schürzen on everything was to keep from getting killed by the things. As fer utility, I agree, they arent optimal for killing infantry. Your view of roles, however, appear to be missing some things, although I agree that most of them dont exist currently, but some (such as killing balloons) do. The KPV was also designed origionally as an infantry arm, although it was taken out of that role, I agree.

 However, that also does not change the fact that a 12x100mm round is less liable to be made obsolete than a 10x85mm round in HMGs. There are reasons why rounds for HMGs sit are clumped around bring ~.5" in diameter with a case length of between 99 and 108mm, but also include things like 14.5x114mm

[Madman198237]

The Panther 2 couldn't be *killed* by 14.5, it was redesigned from the early Panthers specifically to avoid being overly vulnerable to that weapon and the relevant tactics for it. Almost ALL tanks of that vintage could be MOBILITY-KILLED by the 14.5mm rounds, and that's what the skirts are primarily designed to prevent. But a mobility kill can also be caused by a thrown track for many WWII tanks, so, y'know, that's not hard.

The 10mm round won't go obsolete because it's not an antitank round, it's a heavy machinegun now. It will work in the HMG role now, it'll work in the HMG role later. The 14.5 DOES NOT really work in the present conception of the HMG, and it will kinda-sorta work in that role later, but fundamentally it is an antitank round and not a machinegun round. .50 is similar to .40, but a little LESS suitable *now* and a little MORE suitable *later*.

[Aseaheru]

 Schürzen was specifically designed so as to prevent 14.5 from penetrating the side armor of tanks and SPGs Madman, which reads a a little more than mobility kills unless you count dead crew as a mobility kill. Thrown tracks are still normally a mobility kill.
 As fer most of the rest, well, thats yer opinion.

[Madman198237]

Most of the rest isn't merely opinion, it's based on examination of facts.

And if all of that is opinion, then almost everything you've said about the usefulness of a 14.5 is merely opinion, and should be treated the same way.

[Aseaheru]

The 10mm round won't go obsolete because it's not an antitank round, it's a heavy machinegun now. It will work in the HMG role now, it'll work in the HMG role later. The 14.5 DOES NOT really work in the present conception of the HMG, and it will kinda-sorta work in that role later, but fundamentally it is an antitank round and not a machinegun round. .50 is similar to .40, but a little LESS suitable *now* and a little MORE suitable *later*.

This is entirely opinion. Its yours, great. Yer allowed to have a different opinion than I do.

[Madman198237]

That isn't purely opinion. It's based on actual fact, circumstance, and history, not just "eh I think that looks nicer than this one." Those points are largely not really logically debatable because they're simply true, not a matter of opinion. 14.5 ISN'T a really appropriate HMG round in this time period, because the role for which it was designed doesn't exist yet. .40 and .50 ARE similar yet different in the way I described.

[Aseaheru]

 If yer talking what makes a proper HMG in 1915, well, HMGs are rifle caliber optimized for sustained fire. Full stop. So none of our proposals would make an appropriate HMG round. The largest HMG round in the world in 1915 is 8mm. So, yes, you are right, in 1915 14.5x114 is not a machinegun cartridge. Nor is 12.7x108, .50 BMG, 13.2 TuF, 20x138 mmB, the 11mm round derived from 8mm Lebel, 13×64mmB, 15×104mm Brno, 13.2×96mm Hotchkiss... All used in heavy machineguns, many for use by infantry, on infantry(and vehicles, armor, planes, fortifications, small trees...)

[ConscriptFive]

Spoiler: "Less Clutter" (click to show/hide)

Two Revisions: (2) AseaHeru, ConscriptFive
One Revision: ()
Zero Revisions: ()
One design: ()
Zero Designs: (2) AseaHeru, ConscriptFive
REVISIONS
(1) AR-6-15 proposal One: AseaHeru
(2) AR-6-15 proposal Two: Madman, ConscriptFive
(2) PM 10x85mm HMG Cartridge: ConscriptFive, Madman
(1) 12x100mm Highball Cartridge: AseaHeru
DESIGNS

[Khang36]

Spoiler: "Less Clutter" (click to show/hide)

Two Revisions: (3) AseaHeru, ConscriptFive,khang36
One Revision: ()
Zero Revisions: ()
One design: ()
Zero Designs: (3) AseaHeru, ConscriptFive,khang36
REVISIONS
(1) AR-6-15 proposal One: AseaHeru
(3) AR-6-15 proposal Two: Madman, ConscriptFive, khang38
(3) PM 10x85mm HMG Cartridge: ConscriptFive, Madman, khang36
(1) 12x100mm Highball Cartridge: AseaHeru
DESIGNS

Sorry been busy with work and family as of late, well any ways throwing my vote down with Mad's revisions while, I would have liked to have put effort to reducing weight and cost some of the fixes should help with weight any ways. For bullets will have to go with the 10mm as it should make for a good machine gun round for the contract and should be a viable round before and durring ww1 where as the the 12mm one i can't really see a need for such a powerful round until ww1 once there is a need for an antimaterial round come up where it would make for a good AA/AT round. Not to mention making an MG for the 12mm would be more expensive than the 10mm cutting into any profit we make.