Rear Echelon Weapons General

A modern service rifle needs a "hard limit" on its size and weight, so that it can be used inside buildings. I'd say it shouldn't be longer than 75cm, and shouldn't be more than 5kg with optics and attachments. That should be light enough for truck drivers and people on kitchen duty. The only people who really need a pistol are rear echelon pencil pushers who might get attacked by enemy infiltrators while going home from the office. The office itself should have a fully kitted out infantry platoon to guard it, and a few racks of service rifles for the pencil pushers.

I mostly agree with you, but 5.56 is shit.

Attached: Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1971-033-33,_Lagebesprechung_im_Hauptquartier_der_Heeresgruppe_Weichsel.jpg (800x574, 54.75K)

Don't you know grorious Nippon swords were sharp enough to cut a rifle clean in half? Japanese soldiers being shot at could also deflect bullets with their swords, just like in my Japanese animes

In China surely a lot, but the chinks had only bolt-actions and nearly no MGs, so semi-auto pistol + a guy actually knowing how to use a sword/spear very well in CQC was devastating (which the reasons why "banzai charges" were a thing and not just ritual suicide, it actually worked very well for them in China).

Against the US I'm willing to bet none, between Garands, Thompsons, Grease Guns, M1 carbines, BAR LMGs, M1919 MGs, M1941 rifles/LMGs, 1911s, the fact that guys with Gunto were leading the charges, typically against well defended positions and the casualties rates of WWI for officers/NCO doing the same against guys entrenched but that only had bolt-actions, you'd have to be the most unlucky US servicemen VS the luckiest nip NCO/officer.

I'm ancient and old fashioned. The entire reason why the carbine was invented in the first place was for cavalry and other units. Because of this I just don't see why if the artillery and backup units NEED a long gun, why you don't just give them a fucking carbine like they always have and why the carbine was invented in the first place. I think tankers seem to have the greatest case for an even more compact weapon because of their compact quarters inside the tank, but otherwise a carbine in every single case.

I'm full on with Nihon on this one, swords and handguns are great, if a carbine is too much just let them carry the usual old fashioned handgun and/or sword. One advantage of the submachine gun and the handgun is they can be issued or bought with similar common ammunition, the M1 Carbine always strikes me as abhorrent. Say whatever you want about its service record good or bad, it was one more fucking cartridge to keep track of in a complicated war and severe logistical problems. The last thing we need is a PDW cartridge and a handgun cartridge and a carbine cartridge, ect.

huh

...

Better yet, just replace 9mm with something like .357 Sig, 9x25 Dillon, or 7.62 Tokarev for both pistols and submachine guns. Then inevitably keep using 9mm alongside your new meme caliber.

Attached: lämpimänä_pito.JPG (522x329, 28.61K)

honestly 5.7x28 is great, works in pistols and rear smgs. recoil is basically non-existent. If you could get a ccw pistol running it, you could give all your soldiers one of those.

Then you outfit the people who need it with 6.5 creedmoor rifles.

two calibers for the whole army.

I'd say stick with 5.56 and add the 5.7x28. Same projectile simplifies logistics at the manufacturing end and allows for increased benefits related to economy of scale. The 5.7x28 needs a minor redesign first, however. The polymer coating needs to go. Time and again we see in firearms history where a special casing coating was found to be a disadvantage in times of war. Head that issue off now.

It's entirely stupid to make another different boolit for rear echelon.

Rear echelon troop is still troop, and what they should have is carbine, nothing else.

These different calibers are just way of making money.

And it would generate even less flash with a load that's matched to barrel length.

I wasn't taking that into account; being a nofunz, I'm not fully aware of muzzle flash so thanks for pointing it out. tfw can't post insightful info based on real life experiences because of cuckLDP

I agree the 5.56 is shit, but it's an example of a relatively small round that's currently in use by most armed forces though I'm sure there are better rounds to replace the 5.56, like the 6.5mm Arisaka master race

Attached: 6.5mm waifu.jpg (1200x675, 42.71K)

Artillery yes because they're vulnerable to armies that aren't 3rd world.

Now, go shoot that at night or low light instead of beautiful sunlight. What isn't bad muzzle flash during the brightness of the day becomes blinding in low light. This video is a poorer example.

As for you in the first place, its not just about another machine line to create the ammunition, its a whole nother' cartridge type to be added to the arsenal to complicate orders, shipping, stockpiling and unit distribution. We take away a lot of the advantage of the same caliber if we create a brand new ball that isn't optimized for general purpose.

If we give them carbines, why not just full size carbines? Why super short barrel? An M4 would be ideal for these troops, no need to have a cut down barrel version.

Given the cramped spaces of vehicles, following your logic would mean crews are not equipped with rifles at all, but rather a pistol with a detachable folding brace since a carbine would not be fit for purpose here. This would fit better for everyday work, as it's much easier for a chopper pilot to sling a pistol in a holster and brace in a pouch than an 8"bbl AR.

Jesus Christ on a stick the problem has been solved DECADES AGO.
It's called the:
HINGED STOCK
This debate is so fucking retarded, M4 have velocity problems BECAUSE IT'S A SHIT DESIGN FROM 70 YEARS AGO that the US non-content to be adamant on keeping it until the stars run out of fuel won't rest until everyone on the planet use it through STANAG pushing BS, often in replacement of MUCH BETTER DESIGNS, including some by the people that did the AR-15/CAR.
Having the buffer in the stock in the era of mechanized infantry IS A STUPID DESIGN IDEA.
Period.
The longest 5.56 service rifle in service is the swiss FASS 90 which is almost 40in long and it's 21in barrel but comes down to 30in stock closed (so virtually the same as a M4 with 14.5in barrel and it's stock collapsed).
Of course you can dingus, you obviously lose a lot of accuracy but if your stock is closed, it it's because you're shooting in close combat at near 0 distance.
Stock or not you're not gonna miss. Hell to operate in close combat SAS commandos had just removed the sights of their MP5 completely and HK was marketing stockless MP5 for the same reason.

yeah but mostly to other arty, their biggest concern is counter-battery fire. Grunts sneaking up on em is a concern, for sure, but if you have the ability to haul 155mm cannons it's not hard to throw a couple of rifles on there too.

Attached: p90 mag extension.png (750x1334, 2.11M)

Your better go shot Mosin. It has fireball even during day. But i haven't seen Zig Forumsommandos complaining about nugget having "blinding" flash even though it is over 9000 times brighter than any 5.56 with flash hider.

M4 doesn't have velocity problems. Only real problem 5.56 has is short ogive and therefore shit BC for the given bullets mass. But all cartridges are shit and outdated from this point of view except only one that counts as modern. 5.45.

I absolutely love pic related, when it comes to simple solutions that are not some niche gun that only your autistic ass has heard about, this is the gun for rear echelon. Not some faggy ass M4. If you are suprised by enemy attack and you will be cause you are supposed to not be on the frontline, you just unload the fucking magazine in the general direction of contact. The gun is compact, lightweight and shoots the same type of ammo as russian standard service rifle.

Or alternatively you could go for , if you would actually decide to go for 5,7mm as your sidearm caliber you could arm your rear echelon with smgs firing that cartridge. I honestly would prefer the good ol' tokarev since it still has good penetrative capabilities and probably is more dangerous to the body than 5,7 and I absolutely love the ppsh, I'm fucking butthurt that my grandpops got arrested by commies in his young days and lost his guns

Attached: aksu.jpg (800x630, 93.69K)

The P90 is an excellent replacement for something like the grease gun for it's time, but it's now outdated due to our ability to produce better SBRs.

That magclamp was made by AirLabs, thought it was meant for airshit.

Look at rate of fire of the weapons, my uneducated friend.

You lose ~500fps from this though and it is basically the same thing as issuing 8" barrel ARs in US army, except it's ak platform. Ar's would be lighter but bulkier due to stock and not really sound like a great idea.
Better yet, they even changed to a new pistol cartridge as a measure of gun control because they couldn't remove tokarev as it was basically everywhere.

I have to say though, it really does look sexy. Probably the best looking gun in AK platform.

Attached: AKS-74u.jpg (1280x857, 229.04K)

I don't think there's any point to arming these non-frontline troops at all, from a combat effectiveness perspective.

Artillery should either be stationed in a safe position, or be guarded by regular infantry. If they get raided, what are the odds that the raid will be small enough to repel with their rifles? I'd give them pistols, maybe with stocks.

If a pilot is downed behind enemy lines, his best options are to surrender, run or hide, not fight. He will anyways be outgunned and outnumbered. I'd give him a pistol if he needs to deal with civilians.

Vehicle crew might end up abandoning their vehicle in the frontline, but if so the main threat is probably enemy vehicles. Regardless, I'd want them to gtfo instead of joining the fight. Why risk experienced vehicle crew on something good old infantry can do better?

You might as well send these people to battle unarmed, for all the good their personal weapons are expected to do. But if you did that they would probably bitch about being nogunz and morale would be shit. Giving them something small and light like a pistol doesn't have a big drawback, and cheaply and easily solves the morale problem. Some vehicle crew might get a short bullpup, like p90 or maybe even m4/74u, depending on how much space there actually is in the vehicle, and how much they complain about having just pistols. Having a pistol that's not a shit caliber like 9mm helps as well.

If you had extreme manpower shortage and area control issues, I can see arming these like infantry so they can perform two roles at once and free up their infantry escort to do other stuff. But how often does that happen? You would have equipment shortage before you ran out of men. And keep in mind that just giving them rifles won't do much good, you would also have to budget their training accordingly.

Attached: 64484642_p0_master1200.jpg (551x670, 245.44K)

The idea isn't for them to fight as infantry but improve their odds of survival.

Attached: smug punk idol.jpg (1280x720, 78.93K)

Attached: 1467954550613.jpg (500x500, 30.39K)

What's a good manufacture?

I've said it before, but the serbian M92 is a much better weapon.

shoulda gone with Shevchenko's meme ultrabullpup. Literally same ~500mm barrel length as fullsize ak, shorter OAL than AKSU. The tradeoffs are that it's awkward to aim, recoil is snappy, gun shakes itself apart if used intensively. all of these don't really matter for rear echelon guns, but another issue is because the bolt is light and the cycle is super short, full auto rof is ridiculous.

tbh it was definitely the right decision from the logistics and manufacturing perspective

Attached: 5009437.jpg (905x1280 248.99 KB, 224.43K)

Not really worth it. The main benefits of AKSU are lower weight(though 200g is not much) and smaller profile, while sacrificing efficiency in return. In this bullpup you are retaining the weight of the original and, even if reducing the size of the full size rifle, increasing size compared to aksu with folded stock and greatly increasing outer dimensions with that magazine and sights pointing out and probably poking you or catching on something all the time, as well as reduced parts commonality. It's interesting in its great barrel length to overall length ratio, so much i suspect an implementation of Korobov's designs. It would be more of a candidate to the role of the main service rifle but it is insufficient for that, obviously. The issue with bullpups seem to be the one we discussed in SMG thread - the shorter you go the more pointless they are and the more severe their disadvantages become. It seems that ~16" barrel is probably the shortest practical length for bullpups and at this length bullpups are probably on par with conventional designs. At 20" bullpups do have a significant advantage, all other things being equal while 10" barrel bullpup is kind of a joke unless it's something very unique like P90.

Shills are afoot

Attached: shills.png (447x298, 48.62K)

I made my thread first.

And what are we shilling for?

Fucking shareblue shills gas lighting with their D&C black pill tactics.
Am I a cool boy now?

Ugh
A military would have access to factories to make all the bullets they need. Or they could just get a contract with federal or another ammo company.

Generally speaking an updated p90 would be perfect for behind lines lads.

Attached: IMG_1919.JPG (458x461, 46.91K)

I like ones that are "sub-compact", if you will, versions of the main infantry rifle. Like the AKS-74u or MK18.

Attached: AKS74UHD.mp4 (640x480, 3.6M)

I unironically agree with you. The past is the future, and swords don't need any sort of boolits to make it go kill nigs dead.

Attached: Patton_Saber.png (2072x812, 320.61K)

You fags are gonna end up making her part of the board culture, aren't you?

Attached: 344.jpg (432x352, 19.84K)

OF COURSH

She's cute, needs a home, and is loud as hell. She belongs here.

I doubt most if not any of us would have even known about the IDW if not for that cat. I'd say yeah, she has a home here.

Get out of my fucking way, I'm coming through!

Attached: 1DEUDVv.jpg (1500x874, 506.52K)

So be it. IDW-chan's adopted.
Just keep her quiet in the early hours. I don't wanna start my day with a fucking danyan at 0600.

batteries bring heavies and their rifles with them. no need for more rifles

Don't most self propelled guns carry machine guns already?

Attached: m109.jpg (1200x720, 206.25K)

Soviet ones do

Attached: FIRE THE COAX DIMITRI.jpg (1772x1181, 132.83K)

Militarizes that aren't African Militia Tier have pintle of skate mounted MG's on their SPG and FAASV.

Crews are armed with their militarizes choice of SBR or rifle, doctrine be it Western or Eastern calls for perimeter security around a battery or gun, unless otherwise provided by another unit or when inside a secure garrison like a firebase or FOB.

Who's a good AKS-74u manufacture?

Honestly, why do we give soldiers first aid kits? If they're hurt they're either dead or can be medivaced. They should use that space for extra ammo.

Attached: 2000px-Flag_of_Vietnam.svg.png (2000x1333, 11.41K)

Room spent on food and first aid is room not spent on underbarrel shotguns.

Surrender should never be a first option. Weapons are cheap, arming folks for a situation that may never happen is better then not arming them a all. History has shown that if your rear lines are hit my a direct attack, having a form of repellant is useful.