Warning
So you have nothing to say about the rest of my post, but just that particular bit. Thanks.
Last edited:
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
And then deciding 60 years later in the 2020s that what you figured out was best in 1910-1950, is pretty close to what they actually wanted.
But a PDW cartridge does makes sense. IIRC previously we agreed upon .30 Carbine. But still a 30 cal. I think a hypothetical .303 Kurtz necked down to 6.5mm (something like the modern 6.5 Grendel) would make most sense for a “Commando Carbine”. I would say rimless, but it doesn’t seem to have hampered the Russians & Soviets to date.
There is the Bolton-Paul P.100, but what advantage it offers over the Hurricane & Typhoon IDK. Sticking a rotary in the Hawker pair might be just as good to improve survivability. Once it’s too heavily armoured to withstand some small arms, it becomes too heavy to dogfight.
The rest of your post was reasonable and well thought out, the part about the carriers was incorrect.
The art of fighter direction had been worked on by Force H, usually HMS Sheffield so I think that will be as OTL. I can see less priority being given to British naval aircraft if American models are available, the best result would be the Firefly being given priority over the Barracuda as it fills a Niche that is not covered by US designs.
With less pressure on the RN maybe they stop messing around with the specification for the Firebrand and get it in service mid 44 as the navy's main TB or strike aircraft, at this point it would be the Premier strike plane available to any Navy.
Last edited:
What really delayed Firebrand was the Air Ministry insistence that Blackburn change the engine from the Sabre to Centaurus as the former were desperately needed for the RAF and the Typhoons.
And it would be far better for the UK to keep both Barracuda and Firefly and not rely on the US as it means less money the US can bleed out of the UK post war.
And it would be far better for the UK to keep both Barracuda and Firefly and not rely on the US as it means less money the US can bleed out of the UK post war.
Yes everyone forgets about the .270 Enfield round
Dr Beeching (Yes that Dr Beeching who nobbled the railways - and is hated by railway aficionados forgetting that he did exactly what the government asked him to do) headed the war and post war Armament Design and Research Departments (along with ICI) in determining the ideal deal rifle ranges.
They concluded based on feedback from the army that most combat in the various theatres of war took place below 300 meters beyond which under most conditions the enemy could not be seen* and that of those combats below 300 meters, most of that was under 100 meters.
Beyond that range heavier weapons and supporting arms come into play and so the .270 was seen as the ideal and also you needed 'less gun' to fire it and it was easier to fire it on fully automatic
The requirement for the round that became 7.62 NATO on the other hand was that (IIRC) the velocity of the round resulted in bullet drop being less than the height of a man at 600 yards or so something like 6 ft or so - this intending to aid accuracy in that even if the range had been misjudged then the bullet will still 'pass through' the target and so the .270 which was falling out of the air at such ranges was dismissed out of hand and the subsequent .280 was a compromise and was increasingly amended to the point where it was almost as powerful as the 7.62 NATO round.
A .270 FAL would have been amazing - they even had a prototype bullpup variant with a longer barrel
*laughs in the Aircraft engine debates that often happens as well*
No? It’s because in the 2010s there was a mass issue of body armor that can defeat 556 and cheap Long range/electric scope allowing effective range to be longer than the “almost all combat happened <400m rule of thump” 1930s/post ww2 study.
In the 1920-1990s 5/6mm super light caliber is the best.
In 2000s+ full power caliber is best.
(For squad level)
Last edited:
Not quite actually. The Ideal Calibre Panel initially suggested that the ideal calibre for the British army was between .250 and .270.
However, the two calibres presented to the General Staff were the .270 and .280. Both were actually a bit too big as far as the ICP’s recommendations go, but the Staff had already been debating adopting 30.06 due to budgetary constraints and the fact that British industry couldn’t, at that point, completely replace the weapons required to equip the British army. It was only lobbying from those involved in the program and the news that the US was reconsidering their main round that caused the Staff to back down and let the ICP continue. So the round presented needed to have a chance, at least, of also fulfilling American requirements. So both the .270 and the .280 were compromised by this requirement from the start.
In the (probably unlikely at this point) event that Britain feels comfortable in its ability to equip its forces, I think it would be more interesting if they developed this earlier:
6.5mm. Developed in the 1960’s by the same people who made the .280 and .270 before the Troubles diverted attention to much smaller ammo with less chance for collateral damage. It was initially tested using a .280 cartridge ( and is thus generally shown as 6.5x43). However, though I can’t find the post now, I understand from Tony Williams that the intention was to develop a slightly longer (50 mm?) slimmer case for the actual round.
It should be noted that this was not the first time that Britain showed interest in the .256 calibre. Even before the often cited use of Arisaka rifles in WW1 the requirement in 1908 that eventually produced the .276 was initially intended to produce a round in .256.
EDIT: The round developed in the 60’s was 6.25mm not 6.5.
Last edited:
Well, we've had the 17lber fight, the 'Let's Make Tanks in Australia' debate, Astrodragon (naturally) brought up Surströmming, the RAF's policy branch being in Cloud Cuckooland, and then a sidearm calibre debate. Even the unmentionable islands were referred to. So it naturally follows.
Either that, or potentially the Unmentionable Sea Mammal. Oh, I just did it again, didn't I? Why don't we discuss radio sets then?
Arguably .30 cal rounds were needed until the 20s because smaller calibre rounds wouldn't stop a horse. So at least the argument went. Which is odd as most of Scandinavia hunted moose with 6.5mm from the 1900s onward.
The requirement was to drop a horse from 1000 yards IIRC. Doubtful too many moose hunters get a clear shot from that range.
So still graded under the false pretend of needing to drop/murder X at 1000yards+, that a lot of brass really enjoyed in that time period.
Last edited:
so combine these 2 - a modernised version of the 6,5x55mm swedish mauser (shorter case because modern powders are more powerful, same bullet)
lol we need a fake patch with the Frisian Islands on on it, and under it 'lest we forget'
Last edited:
No because if we pick a short 5/6mm round, we can use it to the 1990s. Why do we want a bullet the is far future proof, that sacrifices mid term relevancy? Better to use the 5/6mm now and change cartridge to full power in the 2000s… hindsight or not
'Sacrifices mid-term relevancy'? What does that mean? Look at the expected battlefields of the next 20 years. It's going to be European fields, so the 5.56mm is likely to be insufficient.
Last edited:
no? 556 is perfectly fine in Europe. The study that popularized the whole “almost all combat happened under 300m” was made using European battlefield, hell the ww2 German study that the Kurtz follow are made in the wide variety of Russian and Eastern Europe geography, and the gun itself was battle proven and very sought after in the European battlefield. Additionally, the Soviet pick the 7.62x39 to fight in Europe, they also use and finds the 5.45 to be quite good in the mountain of Afghanistan, even the later US didn’t fine much problem with the round in the region.
Last edited:
A lot of 5.56's stopping power is based on it yawing, and if that doesn't happen, it's not very lethal. It's also to be noted that these folks don't have our UT knowledge, so they won't know that.
Last edited:
It’s was engineered to be incapacitate at the realistic range of firefight… which is about at max 500m…
So it’s very likely that the thing you shoot will experience the yawing effect.