weapons' design and evolution thereof

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
Would a weapon's basic design be altered much over the years?

Yes. The key will be advancements in materials technology altering some game statistic.

At TL 3, most of the features of a modern rifle could be created if someone had thought of them (cartridges, rifled barrels, breechloading, etc.) but the hand made steels are not nearly strong enough for modern bullets. The result is a large projectile fired at a low velocity to kill without bursting barrels.

By the wild west (TL 4), steel had improved enough to allow bullets like the 45 caliber bullets fired at faster velocities to kill better than the old 60 to 70 caliber flintlocks. But a more powerfull bullet (like the 30-06 or 9mm parabellum would burst the barrel of a TL 4 weapon.

You get the idea. Magnum rounds. High Powered rounds. Bullets get smaller and faster as barrel pressures get higher. Same Kill for less bullet.

Caseless ammo will change things again by allowing faster rates of fire. See the G11 and Metalstorm for ideas of this tech. Bullets can becone much smaller when each "shot" is a near instantaneous 3 round burst.

Self propelled ammo might require another change in basic firearms. No recoil means large fast bullets with heavy armor piercing capabilities. Large bullets open the possibility of high explosive bullets.

Obviously Gauss becomes the ultimate small arm with hypersonic projectiles.

Actually there is a very important difference between the .45-70 of the 1860s and the 7.92x57 of 1888 - the propellant charge. The former uses blackpowder, the latter uses nitro-powder, invented by the French in 1885/86. This was the reason that infantry weapons dropped in size. The steel of the old Trapdoor(Alin conversion) Springfield would have been up to the stress of the new bullet quite easily(2) And those gun started it's live as a muzzle loading blackpowder rifle (Pattern 1858 rifled musket IIRC)

OTOH you could build military-useable rifles as early as the Napoleonic wars and kill targets at 400m (Baker Rifle, Bavarian Ranger Rifle) and you could build working bolt-action systems as early as the 1830s (Dreyse, LeChauchat). The reasons for not using rifles where less in the possible technologie and more in the low rate of fire and higher training requirements. Once Miniee designed the self-expanding bullet, rifled muzzle-loader became quite common. And the .44-40 used in a revolver is no more powerful than some of the cap-and-ball charges a few decades earlier.

The last step towards FFS and the 4.92mm Caseless has more to do with a change of rifle doctrin than technological advances. Weapon concepts have changed from long-range precision firing to mid/short range high volume, form "Killing a charging cavalry horse at 400meters(1)" to "badly wounding a man at 200meters

(1) One official design criteria for the 7.92x57 Mauser
(2) Actually .45-70's where used in the development of the .30-03 </font>[/QUOTE]Your specific facts are probably true, but I was pointng more to the evolution from a 60 to 70 caliber musket to the 30 caliber rifles of WW1 and WW2. The bullets did become smaller and the velocity did increase and modern replicas come with warnings not to use modern loads in historic weapons.

It is not too great of a leap to assume that hypervelocity projectiles would be smaller than the modern 30 caliber hunting rifles.

[Your point about the change in doctrine was right on the money and explains the modern 22 caliber ammo replacing the more capable 30 caliber bullets.]

 

[mbrinkhues]

Now I see your point. Or points IMHO:

a) Metallurgy vs. Mechanics

Up until the 1890s, sometimes even later, it was common to design weapon and cartridge in one process, tailoring the weapon to the cartridge. That resulted in a weapon being optimised for a cartridge. An example is the Pistol (19)08 (aka Luger) with the matching 9x19mm "Luger" cartridge. When fired using post 1930s 9x19Para (9x19 NATO) cartridges designed for the P (19)38 it will quickly come appart since the overhaul of the cartridge made it more powerful. The metallurgy is the same, the mechanic is not up to the task. Or the various Mauser (18)98 and DWM (18)88. The weapons lock was modified twice for a more powerful cartridge. But an original series weapon with the modified lock could still fire the later cartridges and the modifícation was done on the batallion level

Civil War (War of Northern Agression) Metallurgy was quite capabel of building a Mauser 98K if given the propellant. Actually once you can build railways you can build any WWI weapon.

b) Propellant charges

All weapons pre 1866 and most US weapons before the introduction of the Krag-Jorgensen in the late 1880s where propelled by blackpowder. Blackpowder has a slow, smooth burn rate compared to modern Nitro (smokeless) powder and generates a lot less gas than the modern powder.

- If you (re)load a weapon with the same amount of nitro as blackpowder, the massiv increase in gas generated will burst the barrel. So 1:1 replacement is not recommended. Since computing the replacement is beyond the capabilities of a reloader, the "don't use modern charges" is put on

- Even if you figure out the correct ammount, the mechanic might not be up to it. Re-barelling the Martini-Henry (of Rourkes Drift fame) to .30-03 Enfield would have been doable(1), re-fitting the same-period Mauser 1871 was not(2)

c) Same caliber, different loads

The original .44-40 load used in the 1873 Winchester or the Peacemaker was a blackpowder load. The at first look similar modern loads are IIRC Nitro loads. So using the latter ammo in the former weapon will generate to much gas. Again Winchester would have been capabel of building a weapon that could stand the load but there was no reason to build the weapon that heavy

d) Weapons re-use

The .45-70 Springfield used in Little Big Horn and on Cuba in 1899 started life as a .58 caliber black-powder muzzle loader (A capslock) that got cut up and fitted with a rear-loading lock (Allin Conversion). The 1886 LeBed rifle (the first nitro weapon) was using the same metallurgy as the 1850s LeChauchat Needle Rifle


(1) The brits realised that a impossibility to add a magazin made the exercise futile

(2) The weapon metallurgy itself was sturdy enough and used in the development of what became the development of standard german cartridge for the 1888-1945 timeline. The weapon mechanic was not, wearing out quickly. A beefed up but very similar version OTOH is still very common since the Mauser 98.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Civil War (War of Northern Agression) Metallurgy was quite capable of building a Mauser 98K if given the propellant. Actually once you can build railways you can build any WWI weapon.

Since you seem to have a more detailed knowledge in this area than I do, I have a quick question:

Even if the quality of steel available in 1810 was good enough to build a 1910 model weapon (don't take the exact year too literally), would the manufacturing process be able to turn them out in bulk (at least as fast as an 1810 era rifle) and would the manufacturing precision allow a functioning weapon? A revolutionary war era weaponmaker could not have hand wrought the parts to a Tommy Gun with suffient precision to allow mass production with interchangable parts (even if the metal was strong enough). I always wondered when modern repeaters and semi-automatic weapons could have been produced if the plans had always existed.

 

[sinbadsam]

Actually the Romans had the tech to build repeating black powder fire arms, they just did not put everything together in the correct package.

In GGG there have a Roman era submachine gun, never build but could have been built

 

[mbrinkhues]

I deliberatly said Mauser 98K, not Heckler and Koch G3 The modern "stamped metal" weapons are totally out as are things like Polygonal weapons.

Mass-Production is doable as can be seen by weapons like Brown Bess or the Baker and the mass-armies of the Napoleonic war.

Mass production with interchangeable parts is more tricky. Even the first Colt revolvers from 1847 often needed some adjustment of replacememt parts by a gunsmith. Often the arsenals delivered a "rough" part and batallion armorers did the final adjustment.

The first US interchangeable parts gun was demonstrated by Eli Whitney aroubd 1798. The resulting gun was not perfect but of the "make final adjustment" type. See this page for more on Whitney and this one on Cpt Hall (and his often overlooked Rifle)

 

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:

Now I see your point. Or points IMHO:

a) Metallurgy vs. Mechanics
...
b) Propellant charges
...
c) Same caliber, different loads
...
d) Weapons re-use
...

A fascinating, informative read, Michael. Thank you for sharing your knowledge of slugthrowers with us!

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Sinbad Sam:
Actually the Romans had the tech to build repeating black powder fire arms, they just did not put everything together in the correct package.

In GGG there have a Roman era submachine gun, never build but could have been built

I suspect that a Roman Era firearm would be unlikely to work. Hand wrought steel is too variable in content and properties for "firearm" type precision. My "gut instinct" is that you would produce 9 Roman pipebombs for each functioning rifle. Feel free to quote some source to prove me wrong.

 

[sinbadsam]

Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sinbad Sam:
Actually the Romans had the tech to build repeating black powder fire arms, they just did not put everything together in the correct package.

In GGG there have a Roman era submachine gun, never build but could have been built

I suspect that a Roman Era firearm would be unlikely to work. Hand wrought steel is too variable in content and properties for "firearm" type precision. My "gut instinct" is that you would produce 9 Roman pipebombs for each functioning rifle. Feel free to quote some source to prove me wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]Well first thing, early firearms were not always made of steel or iron, bronze was one material used. Cheaper, easier to work, so what if we lose a few legionaries.

IIRC the weapon was listed in the GGG publication of "More GGG", along with the Cro Magnum firearm.

My copies are in storage so to speak, my spreadsheet makes binary weapons from the design sequences from said books.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Sinbad Sam:
...along with the Cro Magnum firearm.

What? Like Kirk in the episode where he makes a hand cannon with found materials?



Love the typo btw, got a big grin from me though I only spotted it while composing the reply. Or is that actually how they published it as a groaner?

 

[Uncle Bob]

A couple of problems. Copper cartridges are too soft to use in a repeating weapon, reliably. Bronze is difficult to work. Brass requires zinc, not available to Roman technology. Also, it takes a lot of hand-made cartridges to feed an automatic.

Fulminate primers requires strong acids, and distillation was not available until the late medeival period.

The worst problem with blackpowder firearms is fouling. Even a simple revolver, if made with smokeless powder clearences, will jam after just a few shots, and even a single shot (like a M1873 or a Martini-Henry) cannot be trusted beyond a score of rounds or so without cleaning.

 

[Spiderfish]

Originally posted by Sinbad Sam:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sinbad Sam:
Actually the Romans had the tech to build repeating black powder fire arms, they just did not put everything together in the correct package.

In GGG there have a Roman era submachine gun, never build but could have been built

I suspect that a Roman Era firearm would be unlikely to work. Hand wrought steel is too variable in content and properties for "firearm" type precision. My "gut instinct" is that you would produce 9 Roman pipebombs for each functioning rifle. Feel free to quote some source to prove me wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]Well first thing, early firearms were not always made of steel or iron, bronze was one material used. Cheaper, easier to work, so what if we lose a few legionaries.

</font>[/QUOTE]How many of these "early firearms" were submachineguns?

 

[sinbadsam]

There is no typo on the CroMagnum. Was described what someone from our time, would build if they got placed into prehistoric times.

The Roman weapon fired rim fire cartridges.

IIRC is was a smg.

 

[sinbadsam]

((duplicate post((

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
A couple of problems. Copper cartridges are too soft to use in a repeating weapon, reliably. Bronze is difficult to work. Brass requires zinc, not available to Roman technology. Also, it takes a lot of hand-made cartridges to feed an automatic.

Fulminate primers requires strong acids, and distillation was not available until the late medeival period.

The worst problem with blackpowder firearms is fouling. Even a simple revolver, if made with smokeless powder clearences, will jam after just a few shots, and even a single shot (like a M1873 or a Martini-Henry) cannot be trusted beyond a score of rounds or so without cleaning.

Good Post.
I have follow up questions if you don't mind.

My personal difficulty with determining what is possible when in Traveller is the underlying potential for all knowledge up to TL 15 to be available at any TL. It makes it harder to determine what is not a technological possibility vs what had not been discovered historically.

The manufacture of Brass is probably not beyond the capabilities of a Bronze age technology. Distillation is certainly possible with Bronze age equipment (limited glass production will probably make it very expensive to produce strong acids). Do you know of any technological reason that brass or distilery are a technological impossibility for a bronze age culture?

At what TL do you think smokeless powder can be made? Not when was it discovered, but sending a letter back in time, when is it technologically feasable?

Concerning black powder and revolvers, were the old cap and ball revolvers that unreliable (maintainence sensitive)?

 

[mbrinkhues]

Well smokeless powder needs (for single based powders)

+ Alcohol and Ether or Aceton

+ Sulphur acid to produce collodium

+ Nitric acid to produce guncotton

+ A system to measure pH values since the guncotton must by pH neutral (pH=7) to be stabel (i.e the Lackmus, BromMethyl or Phenophthalein Indicators or an electrical one)

+ Mercury-Fulminant as a base charge to fire it (the Primer)


+ Brass seems to have been known by the Assyriens and Babylonians around 1000B.C. But making Brass and making military useful Brass is a different thing. Brass must be carefuly worked when one forms a plate into a cartridge since it gets stretched and is difficult to harden. Making a two-part cartridge to skip that problem (rolling the top part, pressing only a small cup and welding them together) is a bad idea. Ask soldiers who fought at Little Bighorn or Isandhlwana

 

[veltyen]

Making a two-part cartridge to skip that problem (rolling the top part, pressing only a small cup and welding them together) is a bad idea. Ask soldiers who fought at Little Bighorn or Isandhlwana

I thought the main problem was that they'd skimped on metal in those cartridge designs. Thin enough that a dropped shell would badly dint the cartridge to the point of making them unreliable to fire. Something about powder buildup in the barrel requiring a full clean every 20 shots or so also didn't help.

http://www.martinihenry.com/ has a good writeup on the martini-henry.

So anyone able to pitch where the martini fits in? Better then a musket, not as good as a breachloader designed from the ground up. Sort of an awkward between tech levels design.

 

[mbrinkhues]

IIRC the Martini-Henry IS designed from the ground up. The two most common muzzle to breach loader conversions are the:

+ US Springfield with the (british) Allen-Conversion

+ British Enfield with the (american) Snider-Conversion

The conversions themselfs seems to be sturdy weapons that worked resonably well. They had IIRC some problems with the primer being struck at an angel instead of square on.


The US Armed Forces had a very cheap ammunition design with thin walls IIRC the Brits used a two-part cartridge that was ripped appart at the seam.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
+ Brass seems to have been known by the Assyriens and Babylonians around 1000B.C. But making Brass and making military useful Brass is a different thing. Brass must be carefuly worked when one forms a plate into a cartridge since it gets stretched and is difficult to harden. Making a two-part cartridge to skip that problem (rolling the top part, pressing only a small cup and welding them together) is a bad idea. Ask soldiers who fought at Little Bighorn or Isandhlwana

Leaving aside the Roman SMG for a moment, would a paper cartridge (like the old wax coated shotgun shells) have been possible. Could copper, bronze or brass cups be manufatured in someone's garage using only non-powered hand tools (like a colonial blacksmith)?

Smokeless powder sounds beyond Roman technology. By the time they made all of the supporting chemical indistries, they would be at least TL 3 or 4.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
But making Brass and making military useful Brass is a different thing.

That's right. Ordinary brass can be used for any number of functional applications, like candlesticks, doorknobs and horse tack.

Military brass, however, is a highly variable material which is primarily useful as a means of keeping loud, middle-aged misfits off the streets.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
+ Brass seems to have been known by the Assyriens and Babylonians around 1000B.C. But making Brass and making military useful Brass is a different thing. Brass must be carefuly worked when one forms a plate into a cartridge since it gets stretched and is difficult to harden. Making a two-part cartridge to skip that problem (rolling the top part, pressing only a small cup and welding them together) is a bad idea. Ask soldiers who fought at Little Bighorn or Isandhlwana

Leaving aside the Roman SMG for a moment, would a paper cartridge (like the old wax coated shotgun shells) have been possible. Could copper, bronze or brass cups be manufatured in someone's garage using only non-powered hand tools (like a colonial blacksmith)?

Smokeless powder sounds beyond Roman technology. By the time they made all of the supporting chemical indistries, they would be at least TL 3 or 4. </font>[/QUOTE]Breech-loading rifles using paper-cartridges and a primitive pre-cursor to the Mauser lock have been in military use since the late 1840s (The Dreyse and Chassepot rifles. They both used a fully self contained "all paper" cartridge and had some problems with the gas-seal. The Dreyse lock was basically re-used in the M1871 (The first Mauser) and the Chassepot got re-made into the Gras.

At least one version of the Sharps used a paper cartridge combined with a primer feed. And at least one US Civil War weapon used a primer feed similar to the toyguns (primers on a paper tape)