Armageddon???? (Part Fifty Up)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't know if we can conclude that urban fighting will be rare. There's no reason, once the demons know a thing or two about geography, that they can't open up a portal as big as the Iraqi one in, say, Central Park, or Red Square, or under the Arc de Triomphe. If that ever happens, the city in question is going to be a total loss.

No it isn't. Direct-fire a 155mm with a nuclear shell straight down the iron sights into the portal.

How quickly do you think we can get a nuclear artillery shell to Central Park? The portal in Iraq wasn't open that long, and I imagine any further 'portal invasions' will be more rapid in their execution.

What the fuck? The portal is STUCK open! It's STILL THERE.

Anyway, we just need to deploy one detachment with a single SP artillery piece with a couple nuclear rounds to every single major city in the country, and it's been secured against anything except squad-level infiltration.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, it’s combat akin to that of WW1, machine guns and artillery doing most of the killing, and WW2 ,riflemen supporting the machine guns and artillery. Why do you keep babbling about Cape Buffalo? Question, can you even polymer tip hollow points (seeing how they have a hole in the jacket at the tip of the bullet) and how would polymer tipped hollow points compare to just hollow points or just polymer tipped (honest question, not just for the sake of debate). Reliably at any range, what about at 10 km (I’m guessing you meant at rifle range)?

How about you list your requirements and I’ll list mine, so we can make this easier instead of you just replying “Dumbass, wrong requirements”.

YOU IDIOT. I already did put out a complete list--you then commented to it, and now you pretend like it didn't exist? Dishonest debating at its finest. And I'm talking about Cape Buffalo for a damned good reason--because we know what it takes to kill them, and they're also thousand-pound plus creatures with titanic strength and resilience. Maybe with your assault rifle fappage going on so much you haven't noticed that we're fighting GIANT MONSTERS, not men? That means we need heavy battle rifles, chambered for even heavier magnum. And then you yourself admit that the warfare is like WW1--where heavy battle rifles worked just fine. So you've disproved your own argument. Congratulations.

[JCady]

The Garand isn't the ideal new BR. Ever heard of the Magpul ACR/Masada? It's a fairly revolutionary (hailed like the second coming of Jesus Lite on most firearm forums) because it mixes and matches advantageous design features of many different firearms (AR18 gas-system, modular mag-well etc), the kicker is that it was designed and prototyped in less than a year by a tiny company (compared to the likes of Bushmaster (who will be producing it) and Colt) that primarily specialises in plastic accesories for the M16 family.

The Masada is not revolutionary in any way, shape or form; it is an evolutionary design which combines the best aspects of various existing assault rifles. It is also not any sort of battle rifle, much less the sort of "heavy rifle" we need for demon-busting; it's an assault rifle chambered for the same puny 5.56mm as the M-16 series.

Evolutionary as it is, it's still decades ahead of turn of the century rifles. By the way, it's not just a 5.56mm weapon. It's also chambered in 6.8SPC, 7.62x39mm and 7.62 NATO - by definition also a battle rifle. I brought it up as an example of design work done by a small company in a relatively short time frame during peace-time (compared to total war with Heaven and Hell).

Wrong. The Masada is going to be made available in a variety of assault rifle calibres, but not 7.62x51mm NATO. To quote Magpul's original press release:

Question: Will the Masada be available in 7.62 x 51mm NATO (.308 Winchester)?

Answer: The current design is intended for assault rifle class cartridges 5.56 NATO, 6.8 Rem, 7.62x39 (AK). Battle rifle class cartridges such as 7.62 NATO would likely require a larger upper receiver in addition to the other major components but could be possible.

[Brovane]

I was reading through Part 14 again and I realized something. Since when does the US allow a woman to command a tank? I know that things are changing for females and combat positions but I thought front line combat positions like armor and Infantry females were still banned from serving in these roles. Even if the US military stops this ban because of the war with Hell it will take time to train females to assume a role like a M1 tank commander.

[JCady]

The difference in requirement between a "normal" BR and an ADR is that the ADR needs to fire a round that is powerful enough to reliably blow out a demon's brains in one or two shots. Regular battle rifles achieve this sort of one-two hit lethality against humans, but it should be bloody frakking obvious that vastly more powerful rounds are required to achieve sufficient effect against demons. That's where big game rifles come in; they do deliver the necessary terminal performance.

A headshot, how will that feat of marksmanship ever be done at 500 m without any optics by conscripts, you know the optics which are a luxury items and all those millons of conscripts that have to be able to head-shot moving targets? Assault rifles can also achieve one or two hit lethalities, it’s called hitting either the central nervous system or the heart. Thanks again for pointing out the obvious, that more powerful rounds are required. Not only big game rifles are capable of firing powerful rounds (look at any anti-materiel rifle or the .338 Lapua).

I meant "blow its brains out" in the colloquial sense, and you damn well knew it. You don't need a headshot at 500 metres; even running at 15 km/h, a baldrick isn't going to live long enough to reach hand-to-hand range when shot by a big-game round at that range.

[JCady]

Question, can you even polymer tip hollow points (seeing how they have a hole in the jacket at the tip of the bullet) and how would polymer tipped hollow points compare to just hollow points or just polymer tipped (honest question, not just for the sake of debate). Reliably at any range, what about at 10 km (I’m guessing you meant at rifle range)?

All polymer-tip bullets are hollow, you clueless young fool. The entire point of a polymer tip round is to have a hollow-tipped expanding round which still has proper ballistic streamlining for accurate long-distance shots.

[[R_H]]

I have to agree. I'd see mostly issuing garands for use in training or rearward units, preferably modified as little as possible.

Didn’t/doesn’t the USSR/Russia and the PRC have units with differing quality weapons and training (A, B, C etc?) that would be handy in the likely event of conscription.

After all, .30-06 & .308 are substantially more powerful rounds than .223 or 7.62x39.

No argument from me.

As for who gets them, in a call up this massive you'd be surprised as to how many Garands and Springfields and other military rifles come out of the woodwork, often maintained lovingly by their collectors. You'd come out with tens of thousands of them by simply raiding gun stores. Along with magnum hunting rifles that would work well for activating militias for homeland defense. In which case I'd have the activation be 'be prepared to show up with a gun at least as powerful as .308/7.62x54 and 200 rounds'. For those who DON'T have 200 rounds of ammo(such as me and my .300 wby), raid sporting stores and such.

Why not just collect the weapons, appraise their value, reimburse the owners and then issue them as needed, instead of having sift through all the crap recruits with their own weapons. Gunnuts would scream liberal gungrab but when haven’t they? Showing up with a gun .308 or better is very good and all for the militia units, but doesn’t really work for frontline units.

In the longer run, run the reworked large caliber AR-15/M-16 lines full out, to include the various small private AR15 producers like rock river arms. The only reason I'd turn out M1 Garands would be for the (soon to be) human armies of hell, as they have a larger number of people trained on them, and their simpler nature allows operation in much more severe conditions. It's far easier to detail strip and clean a M1 than a M16.

Agreed.

I wouldn't bother much with shotguns, as a large caliber rifle can be just as useful at short range as a shotgun using slugs. That and part of the point is to keep the Baldricks from reaching shotgun range.

The large caliber rifles are going to be A) heavy and B) have long barrels. Not great for short ranges. Besides, all those that don’t qualify for the long range shooting necessary need something to do, might as well have them issued shotguns for the short engagement ranges, just in case they do make it into shotgun range.

R_H - the M16 platform, by default, only has an official range of 300 meters against point(IE human) targets. 500 meters for large targets such as formations and vehicles. As for accuracy, not all Garands were created equal, much less treated that way. There are dead on shooters, and there are ones with shot out barrels and such. People capable of taking on targets at 500 meters, scope or iron, are fairly rare. But demons are bigger, and I'm not looking for a one shot one kill at that range. Against Baldricks, a 50% hit rate at 500 meters would be more than enough.

I’ve heard (perhaps any Marines care to confirm if this is true or not, if it’s not the case I retract my claim) that they need to be able to hit a human sized torso at 500m, how reliably I don’t remember. I agree that 300m is definitely max effective range for pretty much any assault rifle. “ People capable of taking on targets at 500 meters, scope or iron, are fairly rare. But demons are bigger, and I'm not looking for a one shot one kill at that range.” Thank you for somewhat agreeing with me. A baldrick sized torso is still a relatively small to hit at 500m, let alone hit it oncee well enough to put it out of the fight, like the Duchess thinks should be the case. A hit rate of 50% with optics or with irons?

Duchess - Given definitions, 'Battle Rifle' is the best description for what we're looking for - A rifle designed for use in combat that uses a full size rifle cartridge, while an 'assault rifle' is select fire and uses an intermediate cartridge.

At the size and power we're looking at going to for effectiveness, select fire loses much of it's usefulness, as recoil would have you missing on subsequent shots.

Heck, I might be producing 1908 springfields for hell. The US forces, of course. Other countries should feel free to get in on it as well.

As it is .338 Lapua Mangum has never been used in any kind of self loading rifle.

There are the Cobb MCR-400 and the Edge RND2000, both of which are semi-automatic and chamber in .338 LM

Once some Baldricks are captured it will also be most useful to test and see which, if any, of our current array of manmade poisons and war gases are effective against them. Chemical weapons could vastly reduce the need for high powered infantry weapons.[/quote]

Would also be nice to test some small arms in various calibers on them as well.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You WILL get hits at 500 meters which will incapacitate even a Baldrick, particularly if he continues to try and advance, fuckhead. Stop dismissing me like I don't know what I'm talking about; I've put thousands of rounds through more guns than you've ever dreamed of.

You may not get hits to the Baldrick you aimed at, but you well get hits. Their army isn't going to change doctrinally enough for them to advance under cover any time soon--they're in PHALANXES. You don't even need to aim at the Baldrick--you just aim at the PHALANX.

The more machine-guns the better, but we need our soldiers to have accurate, long-ranged weapons for a SWEPT ZONE that starts at 500 meters, okay? STARTS. No, I don't expect to get MANY hits there--but hits with a round as powerful as the .458 magnum will incapacitate (by the time it reaches your lines anyway) a baldrick reliably with expanding ammunition, are we clear? The number of hits will increase rapidly and progressively as they get closer. We certainly need a semi-automatic, and that's why I'm talking about the Garand; because we don't need to make massive modifications to the receive to accommodate a sufficiently powerful magnum cartridge.

What advantages do assault rifles confer? What advantages do fucking "collapsible stocks" that you stated would be "necessary" confer? Most assault rifles in the US Army don't have collapsible stocks, you dumbshit. You are simply a dumb fapping little fuckwit who thinks you're an awesome knowitall because you hang out on "sniper" boards and listen to fakes take about the latest "SOCOM" round.

Well, we're not killing people, we're killing giant beasts, so shut up and listen to the people here who are actually aware of what it takes to kill a giant beast. And shut up and listen to us when we talk about why you can, in fact, produce reliable results from even sustained bolt-action fire at extreme range. No, you don't need to hit a specific part of the body--that's the whole reason we're advocating a hi-power cartridge anyway. Soldiers aim at CENTER OF MASS in combat, you stupid dumb fuck, they aren't trying to put a round in the heart or some other crucial area, they just aim at the torso and let go. And the round they're firing MUST be powerful enough to incapacitate when they do so.

[JCady]

4. You want the rifle to be HEAVY, not light, because the recoil is a bitch and because of the numbers of the enemy: YOU WILL BE FIRING 350 - 400 ROUNDS OF HIGH-CALIBER MAGNUM AMMUNITION IN ONE DAY. Heavy rifle = dissipates recoil. Are we clear on that? So modern lightweight rifles are simply going to rip the shoulders of soldiers to shreds with that kind of ROF with those immensely heavy rounds.

Mass isn’t the only way to mitigate recoil, not to mention it’s a rifle that has to be carried around by a soldier. L. James Sullivan made (involved in developing the M16, the Stoner 63 and the Ultimax 100) a name for himself with the Ultimax 100, one of the lightest LMGs

You have no idea how the Ultimax 100 works, do you? It's a continous-recoil design which spreads out the recoil of full automatic fire into a continuous push. This does not reduce the recoil whatsoever; it simply makes it easier for the gunner to brace against the recoil.

This is completely useless for a weapon firing single shots or even bursts.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The two-.50 Browning-for-a-kill demon was a commander on a large rhinolobster. He was probably one of the very large senior demons. The typical infantry demon may be quite capably killed with 7.62 NATO or even 5.56 NATO. It just means we need more heavy calibers in squad marksman and up to sniper roles.

[Singular Quartet]

The two-.50 Browning-for-a-kill demon was a commander on a large rhinolobster. He was probably one of the very large senior demons. The typical infantry demon may be quite capably killed with 7.62 NATO or even 5.56 NATO. It just means we need more heavy calibers in squad marksman and up to sniper roles.

Except Stuart's just said that dropping an entire magazine of 5.56 into a minor bladrick just annoys them.

[JCady]

It is important to realize that against a demon phalanx, the effective range is not "range against point target", but "range against area target". This means that anti-demon battle rifles are going to be scoring effective kills out to ranges on the order of 2000 metres. And before you start petulantly whining that you can't see anything two klicks away even if it's an infantry formation, Enfield-armed British infantry routinely engaged with unit volley fire out to such ranges.

[[R_H]]

YOU IDIOT. I already did put out a complete list--you then commented to it, and now you pretend like it didn't exist? Dishonest debating at its finest.

Where did you post a complete list, as in not strewn about your posts? I gather that your requirements are: reliably kill/incapacitate a baldrick at 500 plus meters, therefore a large caliber, fairly long-barreled rifle.

And I'm talking about Cape Buffalo for a damned good reason--because we know what it takes to kill them, and they're also thousand-pound plus creatures with titanic strength and resilience. Maybe with your assault rifle fappage going on so much you haven't noticed that we're fighting GIANT MONSTERS, not men? That means we need heavy battle rifles, chambered for even heavier magnum.

What assault rifle fappage? If I ever said or insinuated that an assault rifle cartridge was adequate against baldricks, consider it retracted. I was saying that instead of introducing a rifle with a new layout (can’t think of any other word at the moment) you stick with something with roughly the same layout as the M16 family. So that the soldiers that trained with it and experienced combat with it can adapt as quickly as possible to the new weapon.

And then you yourself admit that the warfare is like WW1--where heavy battle rifles worked just fine. So you've disproved your own argument. Congratulations.

You’re still going to need to increase the amount of crew served weapons as fast as possible, be they machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars or artillery. A new rifle is a close second priority, as you’ll still need produce it, enough ammunition for it, familiarize the soldiers with it etc.

I'm finished for tonight.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Reposting list for lying, sniveling, dumbshit R_H who pretends it wasn't there:

1. Urban combat like in Hit will probably be extremely rare. Baldricks fight in formation, which means open-field fighting at extreme range. That means you want a very long rifle that can reach out and reliably kill someone at 400 to 500 meters.

Editor's note: Note the emphasized part shows that I'm looking for a rifle which can reliably kill a baldrick at 400 to 500 meters--I'd accept the lower end of that range just fine!, I just specified a range for the maximum, and 500 meters was the OUTER LIMIT--when it hits one. Not that the rifle definitely can hit one, or that I expect that the average person can hit one, but that it has enough power and momentum that it can still one at that range when it does.

2. You must be able to knock them out of the fight with one hit, reliably. That means a round which has comparable destructive effect to a .50cal military-issue round, with the proviso that the round may be hollow-point because the Hague no longer matters. Therefore, we must have a round capable of, with hollow-cavity ammunition, reliably equaling the destructive effect of the .50cal without it. That means we are looking at magnum rounds in the .338 - .460 range.

3. Hunting bullets with a polymer tip to give good long-range ballistics while still being of the expanding type will be what we're issuing standard.

4. You want the rifle to be HEAVY, not light, because the recoil is a bitch and because of the numbers of the enemy: YOU WILL BE FIRING 350 - 400 ROUNDS OF HIGH-CALIBER MAGNUM AMMUNITION IN ONE DAY. Heavy rifle = dissipates recoil. Are we clear on that? So modern lightweight rifles are simply going to rip the shoulders of soldiers to shreds with that kind of ROF with those immensely heavy rounds.

5. An automatic capability is not desired because the size of the ammunition required to kill Baldricks is much to large to provide in sufficient quantities for rapid fire, and because we do not need to engage in suppressive fire against, but rather in marksmanship.


These all speak toward a big, heavy, and long old-style battle rifle, albeit still semi-automatic, firing a heavy magnum hunting cartridge, polymer tip with a hollow cavity for maximum "mushroom" effect of the bullet on impact.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Except Stuart's just said that dropping an entire magazine of 5.56 into a minor bladrick just annoys them.

No, it kills one. It just takes the whole magazine, and exactly like a cape buffalo, they can keep going on adrenaline alone long enough to rip a human apart after having been riddled like that.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Thank you. I guess we can keep M4s for killing sabateurs like Luga and her breed but not much else.

[[R_H]]

Reposting list for lying, sniveling, dumbshit R_H who pretends it wasn't there:

1. Urban combat like in Hit will probably be extremely rare. Baldricks fight in formation, which means open-field fighting at extreme range. That means you want a very long rifle that can reach out and reliably kill someone at 400 to 500 meters.

Editor's note: Note the emphasized part shows that I'm looking for a rifle which can reliably kill a baldrick at 400 to 500 meters--I'd accept the lower end of that range just fine!, I just specified a range for the maximum, and 500 meters was the OUTER LIMIT--when it hits one. Not that the rifle definitely can hit one, or that I expect that the average person can hit one, but that it has enough power and momentum that it can still one at that range when it does.

2. You must be able to knock them out of the fight with one hit, reliably. That means a round which has comparable destructive effect to a .50cal military-issue round, with the proviso that the round may be hollow-point because the Hague no longer matters. Therefore, we must have a round capable of, with hollow-cavity ammunition, reliably equaling the destructive effect of the .50cal without it. That means we are looking at magnum rounds in the .338 - .460 range.

3. Hunting bullets with a polymer tip to give good long-range ballistics while still being of the expanding type will be what we're issuing standard.

4. You want the rifle to be HEAVY, not light, because the recoil is a bitch and because of the numbers of the enemy: YOU WILL BE FIRING 350 - 400 ROUNDS OF HIGH-CALIBER MAGNUM AMMUNITION IN ONE DAY. Heavy rifle = dissipates recoil. Are we clear on that? So modern lightweight rifles are simply going to rip the shoulders of soldiers to shreds with that kind of ROF with those immensely heavy rounds.

5. An automatic capability is not desired because the size of the ammunition required to kill Baldricks is much to large to provide in sufficient quantities for rapid fire, and because we do not need to engage in suppressive fire against, but rather in marksmanship.


These all speak toward a big, heavy, and long old-style battle rifle, albeit still semi-automatic, firing a heavy magnum hunting cartridge, polymer tip with a hollow cavity for maximum "mushroom" effect of the bullet on impact.

I sincerely apologize. I didn't remember those 5 requirements until you just reposted them (I honestly forgot them, it's quite early in the morning here).

[Singular Quartet]

Except Stuart's just said that dropping an entire magazine of 5.56 into a minor bladrick just annoys them.

No, it kills one. It just takes the whole magazine, and exactly like a cape buffalo, they can keep going on adrenaline alone long enough to rip a human apart after having been riddled like that.

Ah, my apologies, Duchess. I thought it just pissed them off.

[[R_H]]

You WILL get hits at 500 meters which will incapacitate even a Baldrick, particularly if he continues to try and advance, fuckhead. Stop dismissing me like I don't know what I'm talking about; I've put thousands of rounds through more guns than you've ever dreamed of.

Just because I’m disagreeing with you doesn’t mean I’m complete fucking dismissing what you’re saying. That’s wonderful that you’ve put all those rounds through more guns than I’ve dreamed of, unlike you I’ve yet to shoot as much as you, partly because you’re older than me (if I’m not mistaken) and partly because I next to no access to firearms. That doesn’t mean I can keep my mouth shut and my ears open. Putting x amount of rounds through y amount of guns does imply you know something, but doesn’t mean that you can’t be wrong.

You may not get hits to the Baldrick you aimed at, but you well get hits. Their army isn't going to change doctrinally enough for them to advance under cover any time soon--they're in PHALANXES. You don't even need to aim at the Baldrick--you just aim at the PHALANX.

Ah, area targets. For which light mortars, GMGs (and even HMGs) are more appropriate than volley rifle fire like in the goddamn 19th century.

The more machine-guns the better, but we need our soldiers to have accurate, long-ranged weapons for a SWEPT ZONE that starts at 500 meters, okay? STARTS. No, I don't expect to get MANY hits there--but hits with a round as powerful as the .458 magnum will incapacitate (by the time it reaches your lines anyway) a baldrick reliably with expanding ammunition, are we clear? The number of hits will increase rapidly and progressively as they get closer. We certainly need a semi-automatic, and that's why I'm talking about the Garand; because we don't need to make massive modifications to the receiver to accommodate a sufficiently powerful magnum cartridge.

Whatever you say, I doubt anything that I would post in reply to your idea about modifying the Garand will get through to you.

What advantages do assault rifles confer? What advantages do fucking "collapsible stocks" that you stated would be "necessary" confer? Most assault rifles in the US Army don't have collapsible stocks, you dumbshit. You are simply a dumb fapping little fuckwit who thinks you're an awesome knowitall because you hang out on "sniper" boards and listen to fakes take about the latest "SOCOM" round.

Why the fuck do you think collapsible stocks are used? Well firstly, the length of pull is adjustable to different sized people. Length of pull changes when if said person is wearing a plate carrier and/or a load bearing vest. Can you see the affect this has on logistics, assuming you even give a shit, let alone two about LOP. The M4 is the issued weapon in frontline US Army units, is it not? M4s have fucking 6 position stocks, not fixed stocks. I’m a fucking fapping little fuckwit because I read what the people over at the Lightfighter forums (actual service members) say about their issued weapons, why don’t you head over to the forum and call them that to their faces. Go fuck yourself, I’m not a fucking egomaniac who thinks I know shit because I ‘hang out on "sniper" boards’.

Well, we're not killing people, we're killing giant beasts, so shut up and listen to the people here who are actually aware of what it takes to kill a giant beast. And shut up and listen to us when we talk about why you can, in fact, produce reliable results from even sustained bolt-action fire at extreme range. No, you don't need to hit a specific part of the body--that's the whole reason we're advocating a hi-power cartridge anyway. Soldiers aim at CENTER OF MASS in combat, you stupid dumb fuck, they aren't trying to put a round in the heart or some other crucial area, they just aim at the torso and let go. And the round they're firing MUST be powerful enough to incapacitate when they do so.

Center of mass is incidentally were the vital organs like the heart and lungs etc is located, and by trying to hit the center of mass you’re improving your chances of hitting those vital organs. Don’t be a condescending arrogant fucker.

[Stuart]

Having read all of the above, I'd like to add my ten cents worth (up from two cents, inflation hit 7.4 percent last year).

A massive change in infantry long arms is going to be a right swine from a logistics point of view. It's not just the change of ammunition and rifle, its a change of everything that goes with them from cleaning kits, spare parts etc etc etc. So we need to think this problem out carefully.

That's the beauty of the M16 chambered for .50 Beowulf; all we have to swap out is the upper receiver/ barrel assembly; even the magazines are usable. We can even allow units to retain their 5.56x45 uppers in case supplies of .50 Beowulf run dry. Its a familiar weapon, already in production for the Coastguard and its just a matter of rapid production expansion (the fact we say "its just a matter" shows how big the problems are). So its a good interim solution. Also, we can get Raufoss to make a variant of their SLAP round for it and that adds lethality.

The .50 Beowulf M16 will be effective out to about 150 yards which is all we really want from a shoulder weapon at this point. We fight with crew-served weapons, artillery and armored vehicles beyond that, infantry firepower is for closer quarters stuff when we have to fight in towns and cities. We don't know where the demons will open their next portal or what will be coming through it so we can't asusme that the long-range crew-served weapons mode of fighting (which the US Army excels at) will be possible.

So, the M16 Beowulf is the interim solution that allows us to use our existing supply train. The question is, where do we go beyond that? It is an interim solution, not a perfect one.

I agree with Her Grace, the Cape Buffalo is a very good yardstick of the sort of problems we face. To put this into context, one Cape Buffalo took three rounds of .600 Nito Express in the body and still killed the man who fired them. That's the sort of resistance to bullet wounds we're looking at. M16s with 5.45 will kill them but it takes a long time to bleed out through lots of tiny holes - as several people fighting with rapiers have found out; it can take five minutes to die from a rapier hit in the heart.

Also, her Grace is right, when we are training mass armies, complex weapons go out the window. The M16 is simply too complex for such an army so it goes when our existing regular army is gone. The M1 Garand is an incredibly strong action so it might well act as a base for a modern design rifle. Give it composite furniture and an optical sight as standard and we may be on to something. The round we can continue to fight over but I would suggest that the final selection makes the biggest possible hole. The time it takes the victim to bleed out is inversely proportional to pi times r squared.

Now, the F-84. There are hellish problems involved in changing over engines in a jet; if the airflow characteristics of the intake aren't matched very carefully to the airflow demands of the jet engine, all hell breaks loose. The early history of the F-111 is a good example and we also have the way the Brits screwed up their Phantoms with an engine change. However, the basic idea is quite correct, a cheap, light, easy to produce fighter that can be flown by anybody (the 1940s generation of jets of which the F-84 was one - it was orginally intended to enter service in mid-1946 - weren't any harder to fly than piston-engined fighters. It was the 1950s generation that were pilot-killers with the F-89 leading the pack.

So having all the tooling stashed away does help and I think it would be too good an asset to turn down. I think it would be a pretty low priority though, basically using what was left over after the F-15, F-16, F-18 and F-22 lines had been ramped up. Incidently, another and possibly better option would be the AT-45 Goshawk - basically a version of the single-seat Hawk light fighter sold by BAE SYstems but using the US-built T-45 as a base. That's still in production and there would be something like 80 percent commonality between the two aircraft. I'd say thats a better bet than the F-84/2008.

[R011]

You apparently didn't read the original comment that started this line of conversation, the fact that the whole original tooling set for the F-84 exists. (and by the way, we do keep our blueprints on top of that).

No I didn't. I checked back and finally found it. Do we have complete production lines for all the sub components? If not (as has been mentioned) we have considerable re-engineering to do. It also lacks a number of modern nav and combat avionics aids that are standard on modern, in-production aircraft.

The other fighters are out of it because of a lack of production tools; the F-84 is being considered because have a full production line sitting around waiting to be set up and put back in use.

We would have exactly one line of each. That's no more than we have of Hawk, Super Tucano, Su-25, L-159, T-6A etc. If we wanted to establish more lines, then we'd be better off standardizing on modern aircraft already in service I'm not so sure it wouldn't be that much harder to set another Hawk production lines than take the F-84 tooling out of storage, refurbish it, set it up, find sub-contractors to make out-of production components, and so on.

[JCady]

What advantages do assault rifles confer? What advantages do fucking "collapsible stocks" that you stated would be "necessary" confer? Most assault rifles in the US Army don't have collapsible stocks, you dumbshit. You are simply a dumb fapping little fuckwit who thinks you're an awesome knowitall because you hang out on "sniper" boards and listen to fakes take about the latest "SOCOM" round.

Why the fuck do you think collapsible stocks are used? Well firstly, the length of pull is adjustable to different sized people. Length of pull changes when if said person is wearing a plate carrier and/or a load bearing vest. Can you see the affect this has on logistics, assuming you even give a shit, let alone two about LOP. The M4 is the issued weapon in frontline US Army units, is it not? M4s have fucking 6 position stocks, not fixed stocks. I’m a fucking fapping little fuckwit because I read what the people over at the Lightfighter forums (actual service members) say about their issued weapons, why don’t you head over to the forum and call them that to their faces. Go fuck yourself, I’m not a fucking egomaniac who thinks I know shit because I ‘hang out on "sniper" boards’.

The M4 carbine is issued to most frontline Army units; the Marine Corps continues to prefer the more accurate, longer-ranged M-16A4 rifle.

In any case, adjustable length of pull is a convenience, not a necessity. It offers much better ergonomics, but soldiers have made do without for hundreds of years. It's mostly useful for adjusting to body armour...except logic dictates that the U.S. military will be having its troops discard their body armour soon. The stuff is pretty much useless against demons; it'll stop neither their hand-to-hand attacks nor their lightning blasts.

[JCady]

You apparently didn't read the original comment that started this line of conversation, the fact that the whole original tooling set for the F-84 exists. (and by the way, we do keep our blueprints on top of that).

No I didn't. I checked back and finally found it. Do we have complete production lines for all the sub components? If not (as has been mentioned) we have considerable re-engineering to do. It also lacks a number of modern nav and combat avionics aids that are standard on modern, in-production aircraft.

We don't need modern combat avionics on these fighters; they're being built purely to get up there and slaughter masses of harpies.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also, her Grace is right, when we are training mass armies, complex weapons go out the window. The M16 is simply too complex for such an army so it goes when our existing regular army is gone. The M1 Garand is an incredibly strong action so it might well act as a base for a modern design rifle. Give it composite furniture and an optical sight as standard and we may be on to something. The round we can continue to fight over but I would suggest that the final selection makes the biggest possible hole. The time it takes the victim to bleed out is inversely proportional to pi times r squared.

Which is why I've been on the .458 winchester magnum--the overall length of the round is identical to that of the old .30-06. 500 grain hollow cavity, what more for a big hole could you want?

Now, the F-84. There are hellish problems involved in changing over engines in a jet; if the airflow characteristics of the intake aren't matched very carefully to the airflow demands of the jet engine, all hell breaks loose. The early history of the F-111 is a good example and we also have the way the Brits screwed up their Phantoms with an engine change. However, the basic idea is quite correct, a cheap, light, easy to produce fighter that can be flown by anybody (the 1940s generation of jets of which the F-84 was one - it was orginally intended to enter service in mid-1946 - weren't any harder to fly than piston-engined fighters. It was the 1950s generation that were pilot-killers with the F-89 leading the pack.

So having all the tooling stashed away does help and I think it would be too good an asset to turn down. I think it would be a pretty low priority though, basically using what was left over after the F-15, F-16, F-18 and F-22 lines had been ramped up. Incidently, another and possibly better option would be the AT-45 Goshawk - basically a version of the single-seat Hawk light fighter sold by BAE SYstems but using the US-built T-45 as a base. That's still in production and there would be something like 80 percent commonality between the two aircraft. I'd say thats a better bet than the F-84/2008.

The F-84 actually operated significantly unpowered with its original engine, because it was mounted at an angle, wasting some thrust. I think that makes the consequences of re-engining less serious; I know they put the J73 in straight. They could do the same with the Avon and for all the hell you break loose it might still well be serviceable. There was plenty of margin in the Thunderstreak.

I think that we could well ramp up production of the F-45, as we can call it, first--and then after the F-84K after that. After all, we're going to hit maximum production limits for all these birds without getting up to nearly enough production to account for all our needs. Of course, it might be a good idea to try and produce the F-84K and the F-45 simultaneously; again, looking at car manufacturers to build the F-84K would probably be wise there. We need lots of fighters, and though standardizing would be ideal, I don't think we can get the raw production out of any one type or even a group to be sufficient; we're going to have to build as much as we can reasonably manage of everything that we can get our hands on the toolings for.

[R011]

The M1 Garand is an incredibly strong action so it might well act as a base for a modern design rifle. Give it composite furniture and an optical sight as standard and we may be on to something.

Already done, though in limited production. There are newly-made updated M14 variants in service, like the USN MK 14 Mod 0 EBR, that are very similar to what you're describing. I shouldn't be surprised if there are other rifles in that class for which tooling is still available or in use - FAL, G3, and SVD come most immediately to mind.

Incidently, another and possibly better option would be the AT-45 Goshawk - basically a version of the single-seat Hawk light fighter sold by BAE SYstems but using the US-built T-45 as a base. That's still in production and there would be something like 80 percent commonality between the two aircraft. I'd say thats a better bet than the F-84/2008.

I see we're of a very similar mind here. I suspect an AT-45 from one of the new lines would be more or less a Hawk 115 or 200 as one wouldn't need the weight-adding carrier capability for the land-based versions.