You could plausibly start introducing automatic rifles in the interwar years. The technology for automatic firearms existed before WW 1 and the SMG was introduced near the end of the Great War. Much of the groundwork for semi-automatic rifles already existed during the first world war and the M1 Garand was developed in 1928
So in one of my settings there is a conflict between 2 factions. Both sides mostly have technology between world war 1 and 2 but one side has a few select areas in which they are decades ahead. They have automatic rifles similar to an M16, V2 rockets (they're a special alternate version that can be fired from ships) and modern infantry armor. The more advanced faction is being invaded. The less advanced faction uses bolt action rifles as its main infantry rifle. How much of a numbers advantage would the less advanced faction need to overcome their enemies?
Currently I've got the less advanced faction having an army 8-10 times larger and an industrial capacity 2.5 times larger. The more advanced faction has better manufacturing technology and methods so although it has a smaller industrial capacity, it has a higher capacity in proportion to its population. The less advanced faction is an alliance that controls everything outside of North America (except the middle east, which whose nations are neutral) and Alaska
edited 20th Nov '16 7:25:28 PM by zepv
Decisiveness in battle isn't really determined by the rifles the two sides are using. It's much more about the tanks, aircraft and artillery they use (and ships in maritime scenarios). It's the big guns that win battles- even at the tactical level machine guns and mortars do more damage than rifles do. Rifles are really defensive weapons- they keep the enemy from sneaking infantry past the front lines.
Bottom line- if the two sides are using the same big weapons then the decisive advantage in numbers is little different than it always is: roughly 4 to 1.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Good point there De Marquis.
Another question. What would be the industrial output per person for the average slave vs a free worker in the United States during that period (assuming in that world one of the factions hasn't banned slavery by world war 1)?
edited 25th Nov '16 1:05:15 AM by zepv
May I interrupt this so I could post something. This is my villainous monster hybrids known as Theriomorphs.
Theriomorphs are human-animal hybrid designed by the criminal terrorist organization named Megiddo. They are designed as living weapons of mass destruction to further Megiddo's and Laura Satan's goal for world domination and genocide as well with a world of evil and chaos.
Up in Useful Notes/Paraguay![]()
That's... a bit hard to ascertain, actually. That depends on quite lots of things, mainly training and working arrangement. But as a rule of thumb: trained worker will get you much more than untrained worker, but they also requires investment (in training) and also harder to replace, ans generally demands more than untrained worker (including demands of comfort; usually they smart wnough to realize their value).
Using skilled slaves to manufacture things were working in Rome and European colonial, but they also valued skilled slaves that they tend built a system to maintain it.
That's what the Civil War was really fought over- factory workers became more productive than slave labor, so the Industrialized North started to outpace the South economically. Plantation labor depends on territory for farming, so the South had to ensure that, as we settled the West, entire states were set aside for slavery. The North wasn't having any, so, war.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Would it be possible and viable to create an automatic missile launcher with only one barrel? The missiles are arranged and fed into the firing barrel in a belt arrangement similar to a machine gun. The loading mechanism is driven by a small plate which catches just enough of the back blast from the firing missile to load the next missile.
The Russian T-90 tank fires a missile out of it's barrel called the Refleks
. Its reloadable.
Missiles tend to be a bit more fragile than bullets so you can't shuffle them around as violently. Something like the GAU-8 would destroy the electronics on a missile.
Also, missiles tend to be self propelled rather than using a single blast of propellant so recoil driven systems are more complicated.
Modern bombers have a revolving carousel type magazine system that allows them to rapidly deploy multiple cruise missiles and other munitions it isn't too much of a stretch to have that feeding a single launcher unit.
I am going to channel AFP a bit here and point out the Honor Harrington series has them. This is the rapid fire missile system found on some of the ships
This is the internals for the magazine system.
Basically it is a rotary internal mechanism feeding a single launcher. Which is pretty realistic. The Russians have a somewhat similar variant where a rotary magazine services a single launch lid.
There was also an experimental launcher system that fired spin stabilized rockets in rapid fire. The only difference beween them and what is usually considered a missile is a guidance system.
Who watches the watchmen?There are also rocket-assisted projectiles
for artillery, which as far as I can tell are launched out of the gun the same way as other shells before the rocket engine ignites, which seems like worse stress than from a rapid reloading system.
Tuefel Hunden IV, nice examples, good to know the system is plausible.
Belisaurius and Man in Grey, the system is meant to accommodate both missiles and rockets. Good point on the stresses of the launching system. I was thinking of having the system have a variable fire rate depending on the ammo. Maybe if the launcher is firing projectiles with minimal electronics similar to an RPG we could have the fire rate rise to 20 launches per second but for guided missiles the rate will drop to 2 launches per second.
Might the system be able to load targeting data into several missiles simultaneously so several missiles can be fired in a burst without a loading delay between launches? Maybe several missiles are needed to overcome an enemy's CIWS system or the system acquired multiple target locks?
edited 14th Dec '16 6:29:29 AM by Matm
I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this system. Technically speaking, there is no reason you couldnt fire small rockets or missiles as fast as current technology can fire a bullet. But bullets are cheap, and guided missiles are expensive. The whole point of equipping a missile with a guidance system is so that you can maximize the hit probability with one round. Otherwise, if you are going to saturate the target with munitions, it's just as effective, and lots cheaper, to just use kinetic rounds. Maybe your setting is soft sci-fi and you don't care about the economics going on in the background of your battle scenes, but realistically I think that it will always be possible to manufacture many more kinetic rounds than guided missiles, and take better advantage of the rapid fire tactic.
Unless I misunderstand. Does this system fire unguided rockets in rapid fire mode, and then switch over to single fire for guided munitions?
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Mat: Modern weapon systems can pass targeting and tracking data to multiple missiles as long as they are linked to the targeting system. So say you want to volley 6 missiles, your targeting and tracking system and whatever handles the firing solutions feeds the data to the missiles or launchers and then you just start firing. Some sort of fire and forget missiles work best for this.
As for why fire multiple guided weapons? To overwhelm point defenses. Even modern Naval Combat has this concept were several missiles are fired at a target to ensure at least one gets through. Unguided weapons have a lot more limited accuracy and that means some will miss. Even modern systems can classify what projectiles are threats vs ones that need to be engaged. Which actually makes it easier to take out incoming unless you have a lot unguided incoming with sufficient threats to be taken out. With guided weapons every shot is a potential threat because they can change their course to hit if it looks like they might miss otherwise. This means you have to have a much more capable point defense system and it puts higher strain on the system to intercept all the threats.
Guided weapons are also accurate at much longer ranges then any unguided weapon will be unless you have a garbage guided weapon. While unguided weapons are cheaper they are a lot less accurate and have shorter effective ranges compared to guided weapons.
edited 14th Dec '16 8:05:42 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?Thanks for the feedback, really appreciate it. Been a bit busy lately so wasn't able to respond.
The system is manufactured on a variety of scales, where the mechanism is essentially the same. The mechanism allows one launching tube to accept one magazine, which can either be loaded with guided missiles or unguided rockets. If you have the appropriate scale magazine for the launcher then you can load either rockets or missiles.
The reason that rapid fire rockets are used rather than shells is the limitations of recoil. If an Abrams tank fires its main gun 20 times a second it might cause serious damage to the tank or threaten its stability whilst maneuvering, particularly if it's firing sideways. Now let's consider that the turret is swapped out for the before mentioned mechanism. The rockets have significantly less recoil so you can fire 20 rockets of equivalent payload and with the same kinetic energy without threatening to destroy the vehicle. The vehicle is also capable of firing a weapon with far more kinetic energy than it may otherwise have been able to.
The use of these weapons progress with time as well. In this setting unguided rapid fire turrets were initially used to replace the turrets of ships. A Dreadnought armed with shell firing cannons might not be able handle all of it's turrets firing at 20 rounds per minute but if its armed with rocket turrets it can. Initially in the setting guided missiles were uncommon and were issued to only a few launchers of ships in specific roles. As technology improved and guided missiles came to dominate warfare more turrets were replaced with guided missile magazines.
At the most recent point in the setting unguided munitions are mostly used for armored vehicles and infantry portable scale launchers. Laser and rail gun point defence are in common use. These are effective enough that multiple guided munitions are needed to guarantee a hit on a target.
Few more questions though. Might it be possible to have an infantry portable version? It would be a heavy weapon requiring multiple people to assemble and operate.
I generally deal with the recoil issue by dropping projectile weight to atomic levels as needed. Switching to self propelled weapons is a new one.That being said, rockets are more expensive and bulky than shells so ammo storage will be an issue. It's not a new issue but taking a hit to the magazines is going to be bad.
Also, consider adding flechettes to the rocket warheads with a proximity or timed fuse. Multiple projectiles help overwhelm point defense and the scatter improves accuracy. Well, as far as shotguns can be counted as accurate.
Finally, those turret mounted rockets are going to work virtually anywhere so long as they don't depend on an impact detonate. You could drop the starship into the ocean and the rockets would work fine underwater.
If this thread still lives, can any gauge the plausibility of a quasi-medieval warfare with some recognizably modern and some emerging technology given that:
- Only about 7 states (out of the thousands of sovereign if not all recognized entities) have the ability to occupy defeated neighbors and of those only two are expansionist and expansionist in a way that doesn't involve liquidating the former occupants
- Power-armored super-heavy mechanized infantry shrug off assault rifle rounds like spitballs (unless you get them in the eye). Increasingly, power armor is entrusted only to trusted scions (i.e. nobility), who are also more and more relied upon to maintain them in place of the state. Incendiary and chemical devices are about the only reliable way to stop them with all the implications for the laws of war.
- Technically nukes would work as well, considering that proliferation has long been a thing. Every motley warlord army and their pet dogs can field a davy crockett and far too many battlefields are nuclear scarred, at least the main faction has repurposed their old city walls to serve as customs (doing this at the border is impossible), and often enough a city vanishes into yet another great mushroom to the point that its 8th page news. Or, occasionally, an entire city lives as a hostage to a guy with the detonator attached to his heart rate.
- Ill-disciplined and crudely educated levy infantry follow the armored infantry into battle while mercenaries manage specialist jobs like tankists, artillary spotters, and logistics. Even then, logisticians have inevitable trouble when the "army" consists of a horde of impressed persons from the street, some with printed weapons, some with hand-me-downs, and some supplied from the local Honest John's. Though seedmeal (a lumpy, nutrient goop that can be be mass-produced without the help of staple crops) makes feeding armies somewhat easier. A few states (the seven aforementioned) maintain national armies.
- Tanks can still take out power-armor soldiers (Talosians), but they also have to navigate urban (and occasionally nuclear-scarred) terrain with the equivalent of murder-holes everywhere and vulnerable to a truly ridiculous number of infantry weapons and traps. In any case, tanks and artillery are still prestige weapons.
- The Talosians' main focus and that of campaigns in general though is the siege. There are no futuristic castles. Much of the Earth is covered by medium density development and a defender will fortify built up areas to restrict an attacker's movement and rely on constant movement to beat artillery. Defending strategy essentially amounts to move from house to house and wear down defenders until disease or attrition breaks the siege. It's a rare event where the inhabitants of a defending city do not outnumber the invaders and accurate mapping of urban terrain (and formal, local government in general) is a thing of the past. The main issue with this strategy is that loyalties—what little there are—shift with the winds.
- Rulers tend to lead from the front like in ages past, though not in the established states. (In most polities, whenever the ruler is absent, his lieutenant may be negotiating better terms with a new boss).
- Campaigns are often decided by the first side to perceive itself as losing even slightly, for mass defections decide the majority of battles that disease outbreaks or sudden nuclear detonations do not.
- Raiders—who may be the mercenaries one hired yesterday—materialize in front of settlements then disappear back into the concrete jungles with all your stuff and possibly a number of your friends and family if not you, rarely the actual jungle in those times
- Antibiotic resistant and newly discovered diseases decide campaigns in addition to regularly sweeping through settlements
- The Eurasian steppes and the Great Plains are once again the abode of super-mobile nations that are more than capable of outfighting settled neighbors (tactically, for they obviously have far less the number of their neighbors).
- About any group that can set up small "manufactories" and monopolize a vital resource can become a power onto itself, and the promise of becoming a minor prince or sheriff of some small oasis lures myriads.
- The Internet's still a thing, but people are sealed off into their own communities. Only a few know much about the world beyond their section of it. For those who do venture out, the information superhighway's the scene of an endless propaganda war and the setting of constant cyber campaigns.
- Vehicles no longer deter highwayman partially because they can create checkpoints in narrow streets and partially because the more sophisticated highwaymen can simply turn off or ruin the navigation of the more modern vehicles to take hostages without leaving their living rooms.
- Food (No one likes seedmeal, even if its about as expensive as gumballs) and water and productive lands are common war aims and migration-based wars are not unusual.
- While campaigns may end, conflicts are rarely "decided." Lands may be devastated, but rulers retreat to their urban jungles and return again when the attacker leaves. A raid may successfully bring back food and water but the land they live on doesn't yield any better harvests or magically spring water. The main faction only bothers to name armed conflicts if they meet certain criteria. Otherwise its just the daily grind.
It's not as dystopian as it reads.
edited 15th Jan '17 8:12:07 PM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives

When is the earliest period in which automatic rifles can replace bolt action rifles as the standard rifle?