Anyone have any comments or what to make suggestions? This history effects the Hapsburgs in particular so I would like a response from Sam at least.
Michael
1804: Serbian Insurrection Begins
1807 - 08: John XIII comes to the throne and attempts to restore autocratic rule. Eventually dissolves the Senate and attempts to rule through the nobility. A number of cities revolt and despite being banned the senate meets in Angora and declares that John is deposed. In his place the Senate elects John's nephew Constantine, the 16th of that name. While John holds the capital and nobles with their private forces rally to him most of the army support the Constantine along with the Senate.
It soon becomes apparent that the private military forces of the nobility are simply no match for the regular army. Still John controls the capital and its defenses so digging him out could be very expensive in terms of lives and damage to the Empire's First City. After several months of negotiations John formally stepped down in favor of his Nephew and moved to a villa near Trebizond with a large annual payment to support the abdicated Emperor.
At once Constantine XVI embarks upon a system of reforms. The last of the feudal military structure is swept away and while few nobles lose their titles most of them do lose the right to maintain private armies.
1815: Serbs Insurrection turns to overt revolt. With threat of Hapsburg intervention, Serbia is granted Autonomy but foreign relations remain in the hands of the Imperial Government.
1828: Constantine begins a large naval build up including the construction of the The King of Glory (ὁ Bασιλεὺς τῆς Δόξης) (one of the titles of Jesus), the largest Ship of the Line ever built. The 128 gun First Rate served for many years and is now a depot hulk in Constantinople used as the head quarters of the Constantinople fleet district.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Ottoman_ship_of_the_line_Mahmudiye.png
1831: Byzantium Demands increased protection of pilgrims to holy sites in the Holy Land sets off latest war between Byzantium and Egyptian Sultanate. A pair of naval battles quickly destroys Egyptian Fleet and has Egypt's ports under blockade. A grinding campaign sees Byzantine Army advance into Syria and Lebanon by years end.
1832: In bid to bring war to quick end Byzantine Fleet transports an invasion force to Alexandria in Egypt. Persia, Hapsburgs and others alarmed at possible collapse of Egypt make calls for negotiated end of conflict. Also Hapsburgs start to so decent among Romanians and Serbians. With Capture of Cairo and collapse of Egyptian Forces in Syria it looks like Byzantium might have won the war. Then Serbia declares full independence and makes sweeping claims in Balkans and Romanians revolt; both nations have extensive Hapsburg aid. At the same time Persia joins war on Egypts side.
1833: Byzantine army in Syria is moved to face Persian invasion and reinforces intended for Army in Egypt are sent to try to restore situation in Balkans. Popular uprising occurs in Egypt and Byzantium's army is only able to control the coastal cities. As situation worsens on other fronts the army in Egypt is withdrawn all together but as Byzantium's troops leave the major cities of Egypt are left in flames as the cities are ordered burned.
1834: Serbians are driven back and Romanian revolt is contained but it is a stalemate verse Persia and the Hapsburgs are showing signs of entering the war directly. The Empire cannot face so many enemies and looks for an exit to the war. The treaty of Constantinople is signed. Byzantium gains a pair of provinces from Egypt, status quo vs. Persia, full Serbian Independence is confirmed and the Romanian principalities gain autonomy.
1839: Constantine XVI passes and is reign is viewed in a mixed light. A number of reforms done internally for the Empire and nation was stable. On the foreign front Serbia is fully lost and hold over Romanian territory weakened. While Egypt was humbled but only a little territory to show for it.
Andronikos VIII eldest son of Constantine takes the throne.
1848: Revolutions sweep Europe but only have minor effects in Byzantium after some protests. The demands for reform were side tracked into a 2 year debate in Senate that produces only minor changes to voting laws.
Russian enters cycle of local revolts and protests against Tsar.
1854: Great Russian War
Tsar Nicholas I attempts to distract his nobles and people with a foreign adventure and proclaims protectorate over the Romanian Principalities. Byzantium issues ultimatum to Russia which is refused and war follows. The Byzantine fleet destroyers Russian Black Sea fleet and support armies advance up Black Sea coast.
Worries over Russian adventurism allow Byzantium to gather a strange collection of allies and a hundreds of thousands of foreign troops join the campaign. Russian instability deepens and as Russian armies melt under pressure.
1855: Aleksandr II takes the Throne of Russia but there is no respite as enemy armies overrun most of Ukraine and Poland rises in full revolt. Byzantium proclaim annexation of Crimea and this nearly shatters alliance as other powers demand territory at the expense of Russia.
1856: The logistical limit of invading armies has been meet and the war simply cannot continue anymore. Aleksandr II seeks peace but squabbling over the spoils divides allies. The eventually solution in true Solomonic fashion pleases no one. Poland and Ukraine are split off from Russia and princely house of little note is put on the throne of the new nation.
1861: Railroad crosses Anatolian Plateau and connects Eastern and Western borders of Empire.
Also Andronikos VIII pass and his reign is viewed on today in very favorable terms and his son Manuel VIII takes the throne. The new emperor embarks on a new round of internal reform to the government of the Empire, including voting reform and increased autonomy for minorities.
1865: Persia declares war over border disputes. Making use of new repeating rifles and railroads Byzantine armies mash Persian army in 10 weeks and all of Mesopotamia is occupied. The humiliating treaty of Baghdad sees this wealthy territory handed over to the Empire. Manuel had been against the war and against the peace that followed but deferred to his ministers. One thing Manuel was able to do was not have the new territory directly integrated into the empire, instead it was held as a protectorate.
1876: Manuel VIII passes and in his will orders the Senate to hold Plebiscite in all territories with heavy minorities to see if they will stay in the empire. This command throws the empire into turmoil as many wish to hold onto the territories.
The new Emperor Alexios V, was not only against his father's final command to the senate but was a reactionary to boot. Alexios V attempts to use the crises to restore personal rule of the empire. It looks like civil war is in the making but Alexios suddenly dies. Many claim that the Emperor was murdered and Manuel VIII second son Matthew V takes the throne. The year of three emperors is a chaotic one but eventually it is decided that Manuel VIII final will is to be honored. Bosnia, Montenegro, the Romanian principalities and Mesopotamia all vote to go free. Mesopotamia quickly rejoins the Persian Empire but violent repression of Christians in Mesopotamia angers many in the empire and a counter pogrom vs. Muslims sweeps the Empire.
Matthew V has continued his father's program of reforms.
Looks good to me. No real "direct" involvement on my side, just some "support" here and there..sounds very Austrian.
I figure the 16th - 18th centuries were the war years between the two nations.
Michael
Hey we still have the last 20 years of the 19th Century and all of the 20th.... so you have time.
Charles
A copy of my Army Forum Post. Anyone have any comments on the history of Byzantine Small Arms? I will do something on pistols sooner or later.
Infantry Weapons of Byzantine Army
Armory Musket Model Date Various between early 1700's and 1835
Known simply as the Armory Musket it saw many incremental improvements over its long service life. The typical armory musket weighs 4.8 kg or 10.5 lb weapon fired a 18mm musket ball with a flintlock action. As the Armory Musket is a smooth bore weapon the drill manual called for 3 shots a minute. A very skilled soldier could fire up to 4 times but most soldiers only managed 2 rounds a minute. Effective range was normally under 100 meters vs. anything other than mass targets.
The Armory Musket has been widely exported and copied across the world. Both Persia and Egypt copied the weapon for their own armed forces. The 1831-34 war vs. Egypt, Persia and the Balkan revolts was the last major war of the Armory Musket.
The Armory Musket was discontinued with the introduction of Percussion Cap Weapons in 1835.
Armory Rifle Model 1802
First rifled weapon to enter into wide spread use in the Byzantine Armed forces. The Armory made use of a 16mm musket ball. The rifle was a very temperamental weapon when first introduced and required special training. First of all barrel fouling required a special cleaning kit be issued with the rifle. Second to make use of the increased range and accuracy of the weapon special training is required. As such the rifle was only issued to picked units such as the Imperial Guard and Light Infantry. In skilled hands 3 shots a minute and fire out to 500 meters were possible.
The rifle was discontinued with the introduction of Percussion Cap Weapons in 1835.
Armory Musket / Armory Rifle Model 1835
The Percussion Cap allowed for the possibility of weapons to be fired in rain or dry conditions. Also a new weapon would allow the simplification of production and logistics by trying to standardize between the smooth bore and rifle weapons. The result was the Model 1835 Musket and Model 1835 Rifle. Other than the barrel the two weapons were identical. The Rifle had the barrel slightly bored out for the rifle grooves. The weapon was a very light weight at 4.1 kg or 9 lbs. 2 to 3 rounds a minute were typical between either smooth bore or rifled variety. The musket was used out to the normal 100 meters or less with a max range of 200 meters vs. mass targets. The rifle could routinely be used out to 300 meters or even 500 meters in skilled hands.
As with the Model 1802 only picked units made use for of the Rifled version.
Both Rifled and Musket saw some use in the Russian war but were quickly replaced by the Model 1851.
Armory Rifle Model 1851
The gun is a muzzle loading rifled musket firing a Minié ball and like the Model 1835's it replaced used a Percussion Cap. Also for the first time rifled weapon is to be standard for all infantry forces of the army. The M1851 fires a large 15mm, 34g lead round using black powder. The drill manual calls for 2 shots a minute with a skilled soldier and the M1851 weighs 4.3 kg or 9.5 lbs. Maximum range is out to 1,800 meters vs. mass targets; typically the weapon would be used at well under the maximum range, normally 500 meters or less.
The default weapon of Byzantine forces in the Great Russian war of 1854 - 57.
Armory Rifle Model 1858
The rifle is a Bolt Action weapon and has no magazine; each cartridge is hand feed into the breach. The M1858 fires a 11mm, 25g lead bullet in a paper cartridge using black powder. The rifle is capable of 10 - 12 shots a minute and weighs 4.5 kg or 10 lbs. Maximum range is out to 1,800 meters vs. mass targets. Besides the greatly increased rate of fire the new weapon allows troops to fight while on the ground and to not have to stand to load the weapon.
The M1858 went on to great renown in the Byzantine - Persian War of 1865. During the war Byzantine Troops equipped with the rifle destroyed Persian armies equipped with rifled muskets.
Armory Rifle Model 1867
Metallic cartridges are adopted for general use by the Byzantine Armed Forces. The M1858 rifle is adapted to use the new round but in all other respects is the same weapon.
Armory Rifle Model 1868
As part of an upgrade program to make use of the large numbers of the large numbers of M1851 rifles in storage and the new metallic cartridges. A hinged breechblock was added to make use of the new ammunition. The new rifle was capable of up to 8 - 10 shots a minute and all other details is the same as the old M1851. Reserve and militia units are equipped with the M1868
Any comments? Recall again this is flavor text, tech levels matter and not what I say I have.
Michael
Byzantine Artillery in the 19th Century
At the start of the 19th century artillery was broken down into three categories. Foot, Horse and Siege guns.
Foot Artillery came in three sizes 4, 8 and 12 pounders all made of bronze. Also there was the 24-pound howitzer firing explosive shell.
Horse Artillery had short version of the 4 and 8 pounders with decreased accuracy because of the reduced barrel length.
The Siege Train had special long-range 12-pound guns along with heavier guns such as 24, 32 and 64 pounder battering guns. All such guns were made of cast iron rather than bronze.
Imperial Artillery operated in 6 gun batteries for Field and Horse. The standard ratio of guns was 4.5 guns per 1,000 men. The combat unit at this time was a Brigade with 4 regiments and an Artillery regiment of 3 batteries. The regiment would have two 4-lb batteries and one 8-lb battery. The 12 pound field artillery and howitzer was a Corps level asset and typically organized into heavy field artillery regiments of two batteries of 12-lb. guns and one 24-lb howitzer.
The Siege train was rarely setup in field operations with the exception of the 12-lb long guns as some commanders would try to use them in a counter battery role to suppress enemy artillery. This attempt was always problematic because of the extreme weight of the guns, nearly twice the weight of a normal foot 12-lb gun.
Things remained much as they were till the second army reform of Constantine XVI in 1821. While most of Europe had discarded the 4-lb guns in favor of 6-lb guns Byzantium had soldered on with tried and trusted lighter guns. In the reorganization all 4-lb and 8-lb guns were ordered replaced 6-lbs cannon. Still when the Byzantine Armies marched to war vs. Egypt in 1831 nearly half of the army was still equipped according to the old standards. By the end of the war the Imperial Army had converted to the new standard.
This setup remained largely static till the Great Russian War of 1854-57. Three things changed the balance of artillery. The first was the introduction of shell guns in the late 1840's by the Navy and second the increasing use of rifled muskets. During the early stages of the war were several incidents of Russian Rifle units cutting apart 8-lb and some times 12-lb gun crews. As the war dragged on such incidents decreased as Russia ran out of highly trained riflemen. The third change was the introduction of breech loading artillery. Last saw the introduction in small numbers of rifled artillery. All of this combined to throw the entire Byzantine Artillery system into flux and a large increase in size of artillery of all types but especially of siege artillery. By the end of the war saw some units equipped with new 75mm rifled breech loading artillery, others using the Ordnance M1854 light 12-lb guns and still others using pre-war guns with cast dates of 1830's or earlier. Siege guns had grown up to 250mm rifles firing 300-lb shells and 330mm howitzers. Several of the large M1855 siege guns took part in the siege of Kiev as the war drew to a close in 1856.
The rapid series of changes and confusing state of the Artillery Park called for a number of changes. Also with the big jump in gun sizes and rushed wartime production there were many reports of guns bursting from a number of causes. In 1858 an Ordinance Review board makes a series of sweeping recommendations to modernize the Armies Artillery and its production.
All guns moved from the old Imperial Weight system to the new Metric Muzzle Diameter system. All guns to be made of iron.
6-lb cannon were replaced by 57mm breech loading rifled artillery, the 57mm M1857.
12-lb cannon were replaced by 75mm breech loading rifled artillery, the 75mm M1855.
A new heavy field gun based upon the old naval 18-lb cannon, a 90mm breech loading rifled artillery, 90mm M1858.
The standard Siege Artillery piece was the 60-lb now 130mm breech loading rifled artillery, 130mm M1858.
Heavy Siege and Fortress Artillery all remained muzzleloaders to reduce cost and because of high chamber pressures made breech loading weapons impractical. This combined with the need for special gear to load the guns and the heavy weight of the shells and the guns themselves made them very slow firing.
100-lb replaced by 160mm M1856
150-lb replaced by 200mm M1857
300-lb replaced by 250mm M1859
This setup and the new Armory Rifle Model 1858 are what destroyed the Persian Army in the 10-week campaign of 1865.
Howitzers / motors had fallen somewhat out of favor and were mostly used as special coast defense weapons and were not used by the army in this time period. The 1870's had seen two new inventions the first being introduction of steel as material to make artillery and the advent of the Multi-Gun. With the heavy investment in the cast iron rifled breechloaders there has been some resistance to the implementation of the new guns. As of yet only a few key units have been equipped with the new steel artillery but steel does offer interesting possibilities for heavier guns, in particular allowing breech loaders of much larger size.
The Mult-Gun has 75 Armory Rifle Model 1867 clamped together in 5 x 15 setup. A steel plate has 75 rounds that are locked into create a sealed breech. A crank of a screw fires all of the cartridges at once, tests have shown that the gun can be reloaded a minute with a sustained rate of fire of 300 rounds per minute. It is intended to replace the 57mm M1873 light field gun with the new M1877 Multi Gun as the light field gun has questionable firepower and range.
Quote from: miketr on August 23, 2011, 03:40:29 PM
The Mult-Gun has 75 Armory Rifle Model 1867 clamped together in 5 x 15 setup. A steel plate has 75 rounds that are locked into create a sealed breech. A crank of a screw fires all of the cartridges at once, tests have shown that the gun can be reloaded a minute with a sustained rate of fire of 300 rounds per minute. It is intended to replace the 57mm M1873 light field gun with the new M1877 Multi Gun as the light field gun has questionable firepower and range.
Ahh, the mitrelieuse (sp?). An interesting gun, in my humble opinion it should have been more effective, however it was used ineffectively. Then again, hindsight
is 20:20
All in all, interesting reading, and inspiring me to attempt the same (I got dibs on Springfield Armory!)
Yes a Mitrailleuse but again while it or the Gatling are possible in this time period they will not be used as they could be with 20 : 20 hindsight. Its flavor text and army tech level is key. They will be just a novelty that future generations will look back and say, what if.
Thanks for the words and best of luck on your own write up.
Michael
Quote from: miketr on August 23, 2011, 07:13:47 PM
Yes a Mitrailleuse but again while it or the Gatling are possible in this time period they will not be used as they could be with 20 : 20 hindsight. Its flavor text and army tech level is key. They will be just a novelty that future generations will look back and say, what if.
Thanks for the words and best of luck on your own write up.
Michael
im all for Fluf, just like me planing to use the potato digger, and lever action musket.
Potato digger and lever action musket?
Michael
There was a bayonet designed to be used as an entrenching tool... maybe that?
Quote from: miketr on August 23, 2011, 08:12:19 PM
Potato digger and lever action musket?
Michael
Potato Digger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1895_Colt-Browning_machine_gun
Lever Action Musket http://gunsofold.com/1873_musket.html
Both are John Browning developments.
It has a rifled barrel, fires metallic cartridges and has a tube magazine so its anyone of the late 19th century lever action guns of which the Winchester Fire Arms company was the most famous manufacture. The Potato digger MG is a slightly later contemporary of the Maxim Gun.
I would say for flavor text a lever action gun is fine in either 1860 or 1880 infantry tech but a gas operated MG is 1880 or 1895 tech. Up to 1905 or so gas operated MG's are clearly a novelty and there isn't the tactics to really use them correctly as they could be with 20 : 20 hindsight.
On the other hand because of size of a Gatling or Mitrailleuse type weapons they get used as a type of light field artillery. People aren't sure exactly what to do with them either and worse because of their size the options for doing anything with them ARE more limited.
Michael
Why do you keep talking about "20 : 20 hindsight"?
Its important to look at weapons of the time period as people in the time period would and not as we would. We have the benefit of looking BACKWARDS and have access to what came later. So people will to different degrees know what does and what doesn't work. What is a dead end and what isn't a dead end. This is what I mean by 20:20 hindsight. For example any type of rapid fire weapon even something as clumsy as a Gatling could have massive effects on the battlefield. Also from an engineering point of view once smokeless powder comes about there is nothing really preventing nations from creating semi-auto or full auto battle rifles. People of the time didn't know what exactly do to with the weapons of the time period let alone weapons that were technically possible but were not built or at least not built in large numbers. All such weapons are before there time.
Note that for Byzantium its Mitrailleuse is considered a type of artillery and will be deployed and handled as such. IE back away from the front lines, on elevations so it fires downward. So the effects of what the weapon COULD generate will be largely blunted, even though it will be general use. There will be battles were circumstances create massive body counts, etc but those would be exceptions and not rule. Those advocating different uses of the weapon will not well viewed by the militaries establishment and largely side lined. Such is the nature of most very large organizations. It will be another generation that takes the potential of the concept or device and sees it taken to the next step.
Michael
Sorry, I understood what you meant by "hindsight", but what is the "20:20" supposed to mean?
Quote from: miketr on August 24, 2011, 07:54:09 AM
For example any type of rapid fire weapon even something as clumsy as a Gatling could have massive effects on the battlefield. Also from an engineering point of view once smokeless powder comes about there is nothing really preventing nations from creating semi-auto or full auto battle rifles. People of the time didn't know what exactly do to with the weapons of the time period let alone weapons that were technically possible but were not built or at least not built in large numbers. All such weapons are before there time.
Uhm... I do not know why you are getting upset at Deseret having any rapid-fire weapons... especially in 1890 or later. If you will look, virtually every American military conflict after 1890 involved some use of belt-fed weapons for infantry support rather than as an 'artillery/support' type item. The Spanish-American war used Gatling and Colt rapid-fire weapons as infantry-support weapons (though the 1st US Vols viewed the Colts as far less desirable than the Gatlings) rather heavily.
I don't care about Europe, I don't care about Asia.
American forces understood the importance of rapid fire weapons for maneuver-based tactics... and often forces being deployed used their own local funds to purchase these weapons and ammunition in order to possess them.
So, your argument falls rather flat- because if a unit buys something on it's own because the command structure isn't thinking fast enough to keep up with tech, then you can bet it is inertia and idiocy that is preventing the adoption of a weapon rather than 'infeasibility' or 'lack of understanding.'
Quote from: Nobody on August 24, 2011, 09:10:34 AM
Sorry, I understood what you meant by "hindsight", but what is the "20:20" supposed to mean?
20:20 is a term to describe a person with GOOD vision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity#Visual_acuity_expression
20 20 Hindsight is a term to describe a person who looks back in time with perfect hindsight with the benefit of knowing what happened.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/20-20+hindsight
Michael
Quote from: Carthaginian on August 24, 2011, 10:29:46 AM
Quote from: miketr on August 24, 2011, 07:54:09 AM
For example any type of rapid fire weapon even something as clumsy as a Gatling could have massive effects on the battlefield. Also from an engineering point of view once smokeless powder comes about there is nothing really preventing nations from creating semi-auto or full auto battle rifles. People of the time didn't know what exactly do to with the weapons of the time period let alone weapons that were technically possible but were not built or at least not built in large numbers. All such weapons are before there time.
Uhm... I do not know why you are getting upset at Deseret having any rapid-fire weapons... especially in 1890 or later. If you will look, virtually every American military conflict after 1890 involved some use of belt-fed weapons for infantry support rather than as an 'artillery/support' type item. The Spanish-American war used Gatling and Colt rapid-fire weapons as infantry-support weapons (though the 1st US Vols viewed the Colts as far less desirable than the Gatlings) rather heavily.
First of all I didn't mention you or any one else. Only other military thing I have looked at so far by other people is Carthaginian's Uniform pics.
Second off all how many Rapid Fire weapons in total did the US military take to Cuba and how where they setup on the battlefield? Compare this number to the size of the total infantry force sent.
Quote from: Carthaginian on August 24, 2011, 10:29:46 AM
I don't care about Europe, I don't care about Asia.
American forces understood the importance of rapid fire weapons for maneuver-based tactics... and often forces being deployed used their own local funds to purchase these weapons and ammunition in order to possess them.
So, your argument falls rather flat- because if a unit buys something on it's own because the command structure isn't thinking fast enough to keep up with tech, then you can bet it is inertia and idiocy that is preventing the adoption of a weapon rather than 'infeasibility' or 'lack of understanding.'
See if you can find a copy of this and get back to me.
http://www.amazon.com/Infantry-John-English/dp/0275949729/
In short just because there were Gatling guns or whatever around doesn't make them a Vickers or Browning Machinegun. Especially if people do NOT know what to do with them.
Also please keep in mind that the army tech levels are BROAD categories that cover decade or decade in half time periods. 1905 Army Tech represents the first point where MG are in general army wide use in roles anything like what we would understand. Again I am not saying there were no MG's before this point but I am saying their use, design, etc WAS in a state of flux.
Michael
I was planing 1874ish for the Rifle, it will proly hang around until 190X when I will replace it with the OTL Remington Model 8 (which is a POS IMHO). The Potato digger is just unique as its the only lever action MG ever built and I figured an 189X introduction for it (depends largly on the Infantry tech for when I introduce it).
anyway sorry for Hijacking the thread I was just trying to give examples of OTL guns that made for interesting fluf.
Tanthalas its no problem Carthaginian's fire and brimstone post confused me more than anything.
Just to clear up if you want to do a story about the M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun being R&D for your nation that is fine. Very late 1880's first design, early 1890's pro-types and then in 1895 the design model is finished. The next 10 years or whenever you get the 1905 tech the gun is around but is in very limited use. Could be budget reasons, could lack of tactics to make use of weapon, big headed response of higher command, etc.
True story one of the reasons given against adoption of Bolt Action, Semi-Autos and later Full Auto weapons is generals were worried that the troops would waste ammo. So you could do a story of an old general with white hair and mutton chop beard who hadn't seen combat in 20+ years bitching about the new wasteful 'toy'. See link for visual.
http://centuryofthebeard.blogspot.com/2008/06/ambrose-burnside.html
Just one possible way to have it come into being.
As to the Remington Model 8 it looks like its firing an intermediate round that is not as powerful as full rounds of that size. Don't get me wrong it will kill anyone it hits in the right spot. Still the .35 Remington has only 2/3 of the energy of say the .30-06 Springfield. So its going to have a notable drop off performance as range increases. So your units might have organic snipers at the squad level armed with something thats got more range. This is just off the top of my head.
I would also suggest you go with the 5 round mag and it be clip fed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_%28ammunition%29#En_bloc
or a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripper_clip
The net effect is you have a weapon capable of high rates of fire for 5 shots along with poor range and reduced killing power. I have never shot the gun myself but I take it that by POS its not a very reliable gun?
Michael
The action on the Modle 8 is very very prone to fouling from just about anything, its an example of a weapon that was built to far to exacting of tolerances. Not exactly the best thing for an Infantry Rifle, as to the .35 Remington its actualy an upgrade over what I will have been using previously in the 44-40 Winchester and actualy superior to the 30-40 Krag in preformance
Preformance Numbers
44-40 winchester 200 gr bullet 1,245 ft/s 688 ft·lbf
.35 Remington 200 gr bullet 2,084 ft/s 1,929 ft·lbf
30-40 Krag 200 gr bullet 1,974 ft/s 1,731 ft·lbf
the numbers come from my Hornady Reloading book so they should be fairly accurate, and as you can see the .35 Remington substantualy out preforms the 30-40 Krag. In the long run IDK what ill end up doing, I have alot of ideas but most arnt very firm yet just more like generalizations, but if anyone wants Balistics data on a cart they intend to use just let me know and ill look it up.
Its something true of any type of self loader compared to bolt action; all to degrees of course. My Marlin 75c .22 Semi-Auto I could fire 250 - 400 rounds and then I would start to get fouling problems. Rounds either don't eject cleanly or bolt would catch part way open after the casing ejected and I would have to use the charging handle to close the breech. Either it was time to think about wrapping it up for the day. My grand fathers 81 DL .22 Bolt action could fire forever and not have problems. That and my grand fathers gun is way more accurate, part of that is my gun is a carbine with a shorter barrel. Still lots of found memories in both of those guns.
So excessive fouling I can understand that. Now do you want to have such a weapon in a dry dusty environment like your nation has?
The 30 06 compared to other common rounds of the time
.30-06 Springfield 200 gr (13 g) Partition 2,569 ft/s 2,932 ft·lbf
.303 British Mark 7 174 gr (11.3 g) HPBT 2,500 ft/s 2,408 ft·lbf
8×57mm IS (.318) 154 gr (9.9 g) 2,880 ft/s 2,845 ft·lbf
Like I said you are giving up a lot of mv and energy compared to common rounds of the time. The German WW1 round is classic German thinking, light round and high MV. You saw the same in their naval guns. They went back to 197 gr bullet for WW2.
For me reliability is key, followed by stopping power. From what you have said I question the former and that .35 Remington doesn't compare well to what US/UK/Germany had for rounds; IMHO. I am far from a gun export I own two guns the above mentioned .22s and have read some.
At anyrate tech levels rule battles and I don't see a problem with this weapon for 1905 tech. It has issues and its bonuses. Interesting choice for the flavor text.
Since I killed Russia I will steal some of their stuff. In particular the 7.62×54 round and the Mosin–Nagant rifle it went with it. So for smokeless power that will be the infantry weapon of Byzantium, Armory Rifle Model 1895 or something like that.
Michael
Michael
Oh hey... the Mondragon rifle shows up in 1887... Mwuhahahaha!!!
Sergeant Schlock's BFG 3 pound bolt action gun modified from a cannon appears in....1875. MWAHAHA!!!
Quote from: Desertfox on August 24, 2011, 06:55:14 PM
Oh hey... the Mondragon rifle shows up in 1887... Mwuhahahaha!!!
If people want buggy infantry weapons with high rates of jams and miss fires as their standard weapon fine by me. All I would say is that this is 1905 tech, and not 1895.
Again there is a reason besides bureaucratic inertia why it took so long for semi-auto and later full-auto battle rifles to appear.
Once again remember this is all flavor text.
Michael
Quote from: miketr on August 24, 2011, 07:35:26 PM
Quote from: Desertfox on August 24, 2011, 06:55:14 PM
Oh hey... the Mondragon rifle shows up in 1887... Mwuhahahaha!!!
If people want buggy infantry weapons with high rates of jams and miss fires as their standard weapon fine by me. All I would say is that this is 1905 tech, and not 1895.
Again there is a reason besides bureaucratic inertia why it took so long for semi-auto and later full-auto battle rifles to appear.
Once again remember this is all flavor text.
Michael
ROFL Yup, and previously I went for the bigest shoulder killer I could find (well and had any practical experiance with), this time im going for a combined cartrige initialy (its just for flavor realy but I thought it would be cool to use the same ammo for my Rifle and pistol initialy). Honestly I may stay lever action and switch to the 30-30 in like 189X for rifles (about the time the US adopted the 30-40 Krag OTL) or perhaps ill stick with 44 cal for everything and "invent" the 444 Marlin for Rifle use.
Quote from: miketr on August 24, 2011, 02:05:49 PM
Tanthalas its no problem Carthaginian's fire and brimstone post confused me more than anything.
Just to clear up if you want to do a story about the M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun being R&D for your nation that is fine. Very late 1880's first design, early 1890's pro-types and then in 1895 the design model is finished. The next 10 years or whenever you get the 1905 tech the gun is around but is in very limited use. Could be budget reasons, could lack of tactics to make use of weapon, big headed response of higher command, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1895_Colt-Browning_machine_gun
The M1895 was used in several battles in the Philippines and Cuba.
Gatlings were also extensively use in both conflicts.
The fact that idiots in power were slow to adopt them is not an issue...
the real fact is that people in the U.S. Military actually sprung for them ON THEIR OWN NICKLES because they were so useful. They were not experimental models, they were not in limited production, and they were not fulkl of unrealized potential.
We are not dealing with old hide-bound military structures here.
The North American nations are, by and large, like the United States military... young, forming new tactics for a new environment, and developing the kind of organizational structures that were already set in stone in European nations. Heck, Acadia (which will have no automatic weapons that don't have cranks) will only be 10 years old at the start of the sim.
They will naturally be more open to new ideas than nations like Byzantium, if they are role-played correctly. :D
QuoteIf people want buggy infantry weapons with high rates of jams and miss fires as their standard weapon fine by me. All I would say is that this is 1905 tech, and not 1895.
Again there is a reason besides bureaucratic inertia why it took so long for semi-auto and later full-auto battle rifles to appear.
It was actually pretty reliable in dry climates. Yeah it will be less reliable than any bolt action, but when you have that amount of firepower, well jams are less significant. There was also a LMG (BAR equivalent) version produced.
Actually Mexico fully intended to equip the entire army with the new weapon, there was no bureaucratic inertia, the problem was of a different sort, cost. Mexico was too poor to afford all the required rifles, and didn't have the money to get them untill 1910, but the rifles where available since the early 1890s.
Is not a debate about what sort of gun the cannon-fodder carry only marginally more important then what sort of swords they get?
I think an army with smoothbore muskets supported by QF-artillery will hands down beat an army with SLR;s and muzzle-loading artillery. Since 16th century artillery has been the main battlefield killer, and is the arm that matters.
Quote from: Korpen on August 25, 2011, 01:02:31 AM
Is not a debate about what sort of gun the cannon-fodder carry only marginally more important then what sort of swords they get?
I think an army with smoothbore muskets supported by QF-artillery will hands down beat an army with SLR;s and muzzle-loading artillery. Since 16th century artillery has been the main battlefield killer, and is the arm that matters.
Initialy your quite right, atleast in Europe and eastern NA, as the rules work (atleast as I understand them atm) it realy dosnt matter what weapons you say your army uses its all just Fluff (although I enjoy Fluff especialy about my Army) any 2 units of say 1895 infantry are esentialy identical (so it will come down to the guy giving the orders realy if numbers are even marginaly equal).
Anyway im done posting in this thread its suposed to be for Mike to post his backstory stuff and IMHO we have totaly hijacked it
Quote from: Carthaginian on August 24, 2011, 10:30:16 PM
Quote from: miketr on August 24, 2011, 02:05:49 PM
Tanthalas its no problem Carthaginian's fire and brimstone post confused me more than anything.
Just to clear up if you want to do a story about the M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun being R&D for your nation that is fine. Very late 1880's first design, early 1890's pro-types and then in 1895 the design model is finished. The next 10 years or whenever you get the 1905 tech the gun is around but is in very limited use. Could be budget reasons, could lack of tactics to make use of weapon, big headed response of higher command, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1895_Colt-Browning_machine_gun
The M1895 was used in several battles in the Philippines and Cuba.
Gatlings were also extensively use in both conflicts.
The fact that idiots in power were slow to adopt them is not an issue... the real fact is that people in the U.S. Military actually sprung for them ON THEIR OWN NICKLES because they were so useful. They were not experimental models, they were not in limited production, and they were not fulkl of unrealized potential.
We are not dealing with old hide-bound military structures here.
The North American nations are, by and large, like the United States military... young, forming new tactics for a new environment, and developing the kind of organizational structures that were already set in stone in European nations. Heck, Acadia (which will have no automatic weapons that don't have cranks) will only be 10 years old at the start of the sim.
They will naturally be more open to new ideas than nations like Byzantium, if they are role-played correctly. :D
This needs to be said... In military terms the United States was a military backwater through much of the 19th century. Even the USN the most advanced and respected of US military services was never considered great power till the end of the 19th century and far longer for it to clear take Neptune's Trident.
The USA of today is not the USA of 1944 or the USA of 1904 or of 1874 and so on.
Now lets look at your example in more detail.
http://www.spanamwar.com/Coltmachinegun.htm
Notice something? Its a couple of MG's total out of an invasion force of what? 10K, 15K or 20K? Its experimental the US army didn't even want the things which you yourself admit but don't see the significance of.
Now as to your other statement, it didn't have any unrealized potential. What sort of tactics are we seeing it used with? The examples show it being used as a purely static and defensive role. While useful its actual role is highly limited, its was a stepping stone. Each stepping stone builds the knowledge base, refines the TACTICS and so increases the utility of the weapon.
Once again its one thing to have a neat weapon its another to get the full effect out of it. The USA was NOT getting the full effect out of that weapon.
Check out the following besides On Infantry
http://www.amazon.com/Kaisers-Army-Politics-Technology-1870-1918/dp/0195179455/
http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Studies-International-History-Politics/dp/0691015953
If you read the books or others on change in military tactics / technology there is a clear learning curve for weapons. So sorry and no, the Colt Browning is neither a fully refined MG, in wide spread use nor do the tactics exists to get the full potential out of it.
Michael
Quote from: Tanthalas on August 25, 2011, 01:13:00 AM
Quote from: Korpen on August 25, 2011, 01:02:31 AM
Is not a debate about what sort of gun the cannon-fodder carry only marginally more important then what sort of swords they get?
I think an army with smoothbore muskets supported by QF-artillery will hands down beat an army with SLR;s and muzzle-loading artillery. Since 16th century artillery has been the main battlefield killer, and is the arm that matters.
Initialy your quite right, atleast in Europe and eastern NA, as the rules work (atleast as I understand them atm) it realy dosnt matter what weapons you say your army uses its all just Fluff (although I enjoy Fluff especialy about my Army) any 2 units of say 1895 infantry are esentialy identical (so it will come down to the guy giving the orders realy if numbers are even marginaly equal).
Anyway im done posting in this thread its suposed to be for Mike to post his backstory stuff and IMHO we have totaly hijacked it
In a nut shell yes.
Michael
Quote from: miketr on August 25, 2011, 01:49:35 AM
This needs to be said... In military terms the United States was a military backwater through much of the 19th century. Even the USN the most advanced and respected of US military services was never considered great power till the end of the 19th century and far longer for it to clear take Neptune's Trident.
Notice something? Its a couple of MG's total out of an invasion force of what? 10K, 15K or 20K? Its experimental the US army didn't even want the things which you yourself admit but don't see the significance of.
Uhm... backwater- sure, who cares about the 'backwater' part.
Marginalization is an attempt at distraction... I am aware of the history of the US Army, having worked for them an all.
Notice that the word 'Gatlings' always showed up in my discussions as well as 'Colt?' Also, you are looking at the entire force; the only unit I have info on as having rapid-fire weapons was the 1st US Vols... which carried no less than FIVE rapid-fire weapons for 1060 men: two Colt's and three Gatlings in .30-40 Kraig. They did eventually loan the Colts out to someone else later, and one of their Gatlings farther on- but they basically hit upon the German tactic direct infantry use of machine guns about 20 years early.
Quote from: miketr on August 25, 2011, 01:49:35 AMNow as to your other statement, it didn't have any unrealized potential.
http://www.amazon.com/Kaisers-Army-Politics-Technology-1870-1918/dp/0195179455/
http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Studies-International-History-Politics/dp/0691015953
If you read the books or others on change in military tactics / technology there is a clear learning curve for weapons. So sorry and no, the Colt Browning is neither a fully refined MG, in wide spread use nor do the tactics exists to get the full potential out of it.
There is a learning curve for any weapon... but it's not something that took decades to realize- people were using it very, very effectively within a few years of it's introduction. We were not seeing the kind of full-on maneuver warfare that one sees after the introduction of the Lewis or Bren- but we ARE seeing infantry advances covered by forward-positioned machine guns, and even limited movement of those weapons to support the advance. Are the tactics
refined to the point of what I learned to use with my SAW - NO. Are their tactics evidently different than the near trench warfare that the US Military had previously engaged with during the latter part of the War Between the States - oh, heck yeah.
So, yes, this is an effective use of automatic weapons... and they are spread throughout the world at this time. They are limited in number as much due to the fact that battles in this time period are generally small as they are to the fact that the weapon wasn't effective. People are learning how to use the weapon- but this does not stop it from being effective, a clear game-changer, and desired enough that soldiers would spend their own money to have them along (if the money was available).
Quote from: Carthaginian on August 25, 2011, 10:21:28 AM
Quote from: miketr on August 25, 2011, 01:49:35 AM
This needs to be said... In military terms the United States was a military backwater through much of the 19th century. Even the USN the most advanced and respected of US military services was never considered great power till the end of the 19th century and far longer for it to clear take Neptune's Trident.
Notice something? Its a couple of MG's total out of an invasion force of what? 10K, 15K or 20K? Its experimental the US army didn't even want the things which you yourself admit but don't see the significance of.
Uhm... backwater- sure, who cares about the 'backwater' part.
Marginalization is an attempt at distraction... I am aware of the history of the US Army, having worked for them an all.
Notice that the word 'Gatlings' always showed up in my discussions as well as 'Colt?' Also, you are looking at the entire force; the only unit I have info on as having rapid-fire weapons was the 1st US Vols... which carried no less than FIVE rapid-fire weapons for 1060 men: two Colt's and three Gatlings in .30-40 Kraig. They did eventually loan the Colts out to someone else later, and one of their Gatlings farther on- but they basically hit upon the German tactic direct infantry use of machine guns about 20 years early.
Not really first of all it was what it was. An isolated unit and not policy.
Second the Gatlings were USA Armies, 10th Cav Buffalo Soldiers I believe.
Third they attacked the defenders how is this any different than establishing a base of fire with any other weapon? Massed Rifle Fire, Artillery, Mortar or a MG? Attempting to used a crew served weapon to suppress the defenders is nothing new. Lee tried it at Gettysburg before Pickets Charge and many, many other battles.
Fourth even if it was as you say the US Army forget getting to Stormtroop tactics 20 years before the Germans in a hurry. Once again it was NOT policy, at best a stepping stone in the evolution of warfare.
Over all you are spouting not historic record but folk version. Teddy Roosevelt was a powerful man with powerful friends in government and the world. He used this to get the 1st Vol very well equipped and then he and others put out a highly skewed version of events.
The 10th Cav and not the 1st Volunteer did the heavy lifting. Yes they (1st Vol) played their part but its VERY over rated.
Basic question what hill did the 1st Vol charge up and what hill are they remembered to have charged up? Two different hills and two different versions of events. It helped that Teddy was rich and well known while the 10th was a black unit.
As to getting the 2 MG's it was not out of some innate insight into the value of massed fire. It was to be blunt fan boy love of the newest military tech with no consideration of what to do with it. Its no different than ABC nations engaging in a naval arms race, it was classic me too! Me too! Big nations have BB's so we will have them also.
Quote from: Carthaginian on August 25, 2011, 10:21:28 AM
Quote from: miketr on August 25, 2011, 01:49:35 AMNow as to your other statement, it didn't have any unrealized potential.
http://www.amazon.com/Kaisers-Army-Politics-Technology-1870-1918/dp/0195179455/
http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Studies-International-History-Politics/dp/0691015953
If you read the books or others on change in military tactics / technology there is a clear learning curve for weapons. So sorry and no, the Colt Browning is neither a fully refined MG, in wide spread use nor do the tactics exists to get the full potential out of it.
There is a learning curve for any weapon... but it's not something that took decades to realize- people were using it very, very effectively within a few years of it's introduction. We were not seeing the kind of full-on maneuver warfare that one sees after the introduction of the Lewis or Bren- but we ARE seeing infantry advances covered by forward-positioned machine guns, and even limited movement of those weapons to support the advance. Are the tactics refined to the point of what I learned to use with my SAW - NO. Are their tactics evidently different than the near trench warfare that the US Military had previously engaged with during the latter part of the War Between the States - oh, heck yeah.
So, yes, this is an effective use of automatic weapons... and they are spread throughout the world at this time. They are limited in number as much due to the fact that battles in this time period are generally small as they are to the fact that the weapon wasn't effective. People are learning how to use the weapon- but this does not stop it from being effective, a clear game-changer, and desired enough that soldiers would spend their own money to have them along (if the money was available).
As to the rest you have at last figured out the point I am trying make. The point is there are more than just military gear to make an army. Training (unit quality) and tactics are just as important if not more so than the gear that equipped it. The Germans in WW1 and WW2 had some very fine weapons but many highly mediocre ones also. What setup them apart was their tactical skill and training; that and a ruthless instinct for the jugular. Just crap long term strategic insight but this was a feature and not of bug of the Prussian - German military system back to Frederick the Great it was all win, NOW, NOW.
Michael
Actually, I expect the more "established" nations wouldn't be that good in that regard. Me and Foxy, for example, might be a little more innovative than Byzantium, but not much. Same goes for NERF and UCAS.
Quote from: miketr on August 25, 2011, 12:37:48 PM
As to the rest you have at last figured out the point I am trying make. The point is there are more than just military gear to make an army. Training (unit quality) and tactics are just as important if not more so than the gear that equipped it. The Germans in WW1 and WW2 had some very fine weapons but many highly mediocre ones also. What setup them apart was their tactical skill and training; that and a ruthless instinct for the jugular. Just crap long term strategic insight but this was a feature and not of bug of the Prussian - German military system back to Frederick the Great it was all win, NOW, NOW.
And you are saying what I am...
Younger nations are more likely to be innovative than old ones.
Deseret will probably be the MOST likely nation to jump of the inventions of their native son. They also have V-A-S-T amounts of open space, perfect for extended killing grounds,and per-prepared firing positions to allow mobility for the guns to shift emplacements under cover of fire from either cooperating guns or infantry fire. They would also be more likely to use the 'daring' and 'undeveloped' techniques, refine them faster and actually lead the way in developing the tactics for said weapons.
As for the battle of San Juan Hill:
Colonel Wood was in charge of the 10th AND the 1st Vol Cav, meaning that whoever the revolvers belonged to, they were used in unison with ALL the forces under his command, supporting both units in addition to the 1st Cav regulars.
I am also very well aware of the charge on Kettle Hill, and the unnecessary and dangerous flanking maneuver that allowed Teddy to truthfully claim that he had made his way up San Juan Hill- albeit after the fighting had died down.
But I am also aware of Trooper Langdon's account:
"We were exposed to the Spanish fire, but there was very little because just before we started, why, the Gatling guns opened up at the bottom of the hill, and everybody yelled, "The Gatlings! The Gatlings!" and away we went. The Gatlings just enfiladed the top of those trenches. We'd never have been able to take Kettle Hill if it hadn't been for Parker's Gatling guns."
Mike- 'policy' doesn't make battles.
Policy is determined by battles- unless you are following the Soviet style of command, in which case the policy does dictate the battle... although, if they found something successful, even the Sovs would allow for changes to The Holy Plan (though you generally had to get to Army Group level to obtain permission to deviate). The more successful military units are the ones that innovate, not the ones that wait for 'higher up' to let them do it officially.
'Field Expedient Modification' - my favorite phrase in the English language.